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.
*
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Assumpionist-Fathers
With
the
guidance
and
the
support
of
the
Assumptionists,
who
purposely
circulated
wearing
Orthodox
vestments,
the
first
Greek
Uniates
appeared
in
1907,
organized
into
a
specific
community.
A
student
of
the
propagandist
Hyacinthus
Marangos
–
a
Dominican
monk
-
was
the
clergyman
Isaiah
Papadopoulos,
who
operated
as
a
proselytizer
in
Constantinople
and
was
later
ordained
bishop
of
Gratianoupolis.
Already
by
1877
he
had
become
a
Papist.
Assistant
to
Isaiah
Papadopoulos
was
George
Halavatzis,
born
on
Syros
Island
to
Papist
parents.
He
studied
at
the
Uniate
college
of
Rome
and
in
1907
was
ordained
deacon
and
presbyter
by
a
Papist
bishop.
He
was
however
sent
to
Constantinople,
where
he
commenced
Uniate
action
which
was
so
greatly
appreciated
by
Pope
Benedict,
that
in
1920
he
was
promoted
to
titulary
bishop
of
Theodoroupolis.
His
operation,
like
his
other
accomplices,
was
especially
focused
on
Greek
youth,
through
education.
Hundreds
of
Greek
youngsters
were
nurtured
with
the
poison
of
Papist
Unia.
They
had
even
founded
a
women’s
monastic
order
of
“sister
Hellenes” with the name “Theotokos Pammakaristos”, and were attired with Orthodox vestments so that they would not raise any suspicions and could thus operate more easily.
In
Greece
proper
(the
Hellenic
State)
the
Holy
Synod
under
the
Metropolitan
(Archbishop)
of
Athens,
Theocletus
I,
issued
an
Encyclical
in
1903
pointing
out
the
danger
behind
the
appearance
of
Unia’s
agents
in
the
Hellenic
territory.
Up
until
1922,
Uniate
propaganda
was
unable
to
organize
itself
in
Greece.
In
August
of
1922
however,
after
the
disaster
of
Asia
Minor,
George
Halavatzis
transferred
his
operations
headquarters
from
Constantinople
to
the
Athens
suburb
of
Heraclion,
and
the
Order
of
their
nuns
to
Naxos
Island.
In
Athens,
they
continued
their
“philanthropic”
activity,
also
developing
tremendous
mobility
within
the
social
sphere
for
the
purpose
of
projecting
themselves
–
and
especially
among
the
refugees
of
Asia
Minor
–
to
the
point
that
George
Halavatzis
was
decorated
by
the
Hellenic
State!
This
not
only
solidified
the
Uniates’
presence
in
Greece;
it
also
enhanced
their
self-awareness,
making
them
underline
that
their
opus
had
been
developing
“with
the
propitious
consent
of
the
Authorities”.
Similar
things
had
been
written
by
Protestant
missionaries
to
their
own
Societies
in
the
19th
century,
likewise
motivated
at
the
time
under
the
protection
of
the
Hellenic
Authorities…
It
was
chiefly
“ladies
young
and
old
of
the
aristocracy
(sic)”
who
propagandized
the
Uniates’
educational activities; in other words, their operations took place among the Westernized civilians of Hellenic society.
The
Church
of
Greece
did
not
remain
inert,
nor
did
She
leave
the
Orthodox
fold
uninformed.
The
first
official
reaction
was
through
a
document
of
the
Holy
Synod
addressed
to
the
Ministry
of
Ecclesiastic
and
Public
Education
in
1924,
at
the
time
of
the
Archbishop
Chrysostom
I
(Papadopoulos).
The
Holy
Synod’s
charges
were
accompanied
by
its
objection
to
the
State’s
indifference,
and
its
request
to
close
all
other
Uniate
institutions
because
they
were
facilitating
Latin
propaganda
in
our
Homeland.
The
anti-Hellenic
stance
of
Rome
and
the
Pope
during
the disaster of Asia Minor, as well as during the previous World War I was very familiar.
On
April
7th
1925,
an
Encyclical
was
issued
by
the
Archbishop
of
Athens
Chrysostom
against
the
Uniates,
which
provoked
the
intense
reaction
of
George
Halavatzis.
Correspondence
between
the
two
men
ensued
(1926
onwards),
in
which
Chrysostom
of
Athens
–
University
professor
and
Historian
–
analyzed
in
a
powerful
and
outspoken
manner
the
Uniate
problem
in
Greece
and
the
danger
–
both
spiritual
and
political
–
to
the
Greek
people.
Unfortunately
however,
he
left
untouched
the
problem
of
the
essence
of
Papism;
that
is,
its
ecclesiastic
status
quo.
The
Uniate
problem
had
also
reached
the
Greek
House
of
Parliament
(1929),
but
no
solution
was
given.
The
continuous
remonstrations
of
the
Hellenic
Clergy
resulted
in
two
Court
decisions.
They
were
the
orders
of
the
Athens
Court
of
Appeals
(1930)
and
of
the
Athens
Supreme
Court
of
Appeals
(1931),
which
imposed
on
the
Uniates
the
prohibition
to
wear
the
external
attire
of
the
Orthodox
clergy
of
the
Land,
in
order
to
prevent
the
confusion
with
the
Orthodox
clergy
that
was
deliberately
created
by
the
Uniates.
But
the
Uniates
never
respected
those
decisions
consistently.
On
the
contrary,
Uniatism
spread
among
the
Hellenes
as
well
as
the
remaining
Orthodox
abroad
(Europe,
America),
exerting
its
influence
on
endo-Hellenic
reality - in favour of the Papacy and its plans - even from within the Diaspora.
Continued : Part 2