“The Vatican promotes the Theological Dialogue as a means of misleading the Orthodox faithful and altering their ecclesiological mindset.”
Recently, the Pope appointed as bishop and apostolic Exarch for the very few Uniates living in Athens the Uniate cleric Mr. Dimitrios Salachas, who had been ordained Bishop of Carcabia on May 24, 2008. He is a professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and a member of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
For the Uniate community of Athens, this development was of great significance, as is evident from the announcement on their website and especially from Mr. Salachas’ ordination address (Greek Catholic Exarchate).
For the Orthodox, however, this same event was sorrowful and provocative, as it once again brought to the forefront the problem of Uniatism, exposed yet again the Vatican’s intentions against Orthodoxy, and demonstrated how dangerous the prospects of the so-called Theological Dialogues are for the Orthodox Church. The following observations are sufficiently convincing in this regard.
a) The Ecclesiology of the Uniate Communities
The ecclesiology of the Uniate communities continues to be identical to the ecclesiology upon which Uniatism was founded in the 16th century. This is confirmed by the relevant statements made by Bishop Dimitrios Salachas during his ordination address.
He begins by saying: “Our community constitutes a small part of the Eastern Catholic Churches.” And this is true. All Uniate communities originate from within the bosom of the Orthodox Eastern Churches and became “Catholic” because they accepted Papal Primacy and the papal dogmas.
They self-identify as “Eastern Catholic Churches” because they believe that their communion with the Pope has rendered them “Catholic,” fully-fledged churches, granting them “catholicity,” whereas the remaining Eastern churches that are not in communion with the Pope (the Orthodox Church and the anti-Chalcedonian Monophysite and Nestorian churches that did not enter into Uniatism) are not “Catholic,” or, as the Second Vatican Council termed them, are “particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold the first place” (Decree on Ecumenism, 14).
His ordination address continues with the assurance: “Our vision is one of union, not ‘Uniate’. The Second Vatican Council reminds us that the existing canonical structures of the Eastern Catholic Churches were established ‘until the opportune time,’ that is, until the ‘Catholic and Orthodox Churches restore full communion with one another’ (Decree on the Eastern Churches, 30), following the model of the ancient undivided Church of the first millennium.”
And we ask: What is the difference between the “unionist” and the “Uniate” vision? Was not the Uniate vision always, from an ecclesiological perspective, a unionist (pseudo-unionist) one—aiming at achieving ecclesiastical communion, but under the condition that papal authority and papal dogmas be recognized, the very doctrines established by the papal councils of Lyon, Florence–Ferrara, Trent, and others?
Does the “unionist” vision of Vatican II and papal-centric ecumenism, perhaps, foresee the abolition of the dogmas established by thirteen “ecumenical” councils of the papacy? (For the opposite view, see Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory on Mount Athos, Concern About the Union Between Orthodox and Roman Catholics Being Prepared by the Vatican, Parakatathiki, vol. 54 (2007)).
And ultimately, how can the official Theological Dialogue achieve its unionist vision without being “Uniate,” given that until now it has not succeeded in abolishing any of the heterodox teachings (heresies)?
Bishop Salachas then assures the Orthodox: “The Greek Catholic Exarchate [i.e., the Uniate community of Acharnes, which he heads] rejects and will categorically reject any act of proselytism,” and he adds: “But I ask them [the Orthodox] not to deny us the right to exist.”
Undoubtedly, he explicitly rejects the abhorrent methods of the past, and we wish to believe he is sincere in demanding the right of his community to exist and self-identify.
However, it must be made clear that we Orthodox, although we do not oppose the right of any person or community to self-identify, emphasize that the very existence of the Uniate churches is tangible proof that Uniatism exists. Therefore, any action by the Vatican that affirms their existence constitutes an affirmation of Uniatism, regardless of whether improper proselytism is being practiced.
Uniatism is primarily an ecclesiological problem. That is how it concerns us.
Consequently, as long as the Vatican confirms Uniatism by ensuring the right of Uniate churches to exist under their present ecclesiological status, the Theological Dialogue—on the Vatican’s side—cannot have as its goal the restoration of the unity of the Churches “following the model of the ancient undivided Church of the first millennium,” but rather the model of Uniatism.
b) The Vatican Supports Uniatism
Although it hypocritically “condemns” Uniatism as a method of Church union (Balamand document §1), it simultaneously affirms it by recognizing the existence of the Uniate communities (§31) and by strengthening, in various ways, their presence and activity within the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Churches.
We wonder: How long will the Orthodox continue this Theological Dialogue while tolerating such a tragic and absurd situation?
The Roman Catholics (with some commendable exceptions who, unlike the Vatican, disagree with Uniatism) are inconsistent when they condemn Uniatism as a method of union in the past while recognizing the Uniate communities.
How can one condemn Uniatism and at the same time reinforce the very Uniate communities that make Uniatism a historical reality?
The old abhorrent actions of papal Uniatism are well known. We remind that taking advantage of the political and military weakness of the Eastern Empire after the horrific Frankish occupation, the papal authorities laid the first foundation of Uniatism by forcing the Orthodox to submit to the decisions of the papal Council of Lyon (1274), during the reign of Michael Palaiologos and Patriarch John Bekkos.
The second and decisive foundation of Uniatism was laid through the well-known tyrannical demand of Pope Eugene IV for the complete submission of the deeply tried Easterners at the Council of Ferrara–Florence (1439).
With their notorious cunning, the Jesuits, from the Council of Brest (1596) onwards, made Uniatism the great temptation for the Orthodox Eastern Church—
a temptation that cost the life of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris, led to the deposition of many patriarchs, caused large communities in Ukraine, Transylvania, Dalmatia, and Antioch to fall away from the Church, and provoked relentless persecutions against the Orthodox in these and other Ottoman-ruled regions.
(Sources: Uniatism Yesterday and Today—collective volume by Fr. G. D. Metallinos, D. Gonis, Dr. I. Fratseas, Dr. E. Moraru, and Bishop Athanasius Jevtić of Banat, Harmos Publications, 1992; Bishop Ambrosios of Girogium, Historical Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Union of the Orthodox of Transylvania with the Roman Catholic Church (Uniatism in Transylvania from the 18th to the 21st century), Pournaras Publications, Thessaloniki 2006; Archimandrite George Capsanis, The Ecclesiological Self-Consciousness of the Orthodox from the Fall of Constantinople until the Early 20th Century, in the volume Eikosipentetairikon, Thessaloniki 1999; Timotheos I. Timotheadis, The Uniatism of Giannitsa and the Policy of the Vatican Yesterday and Today, Giannitsa 1992.)
During the same period, papally driven Uniate propaganda escalated through the activity of Propaganda Fidei and through its schools (preeminent among them the Greek College of St. Athanasius in Rome)
[cf. Zacharias N. Tsirpanlis, The Macedonian Students of the Greek College of Rome and Their Activities in Greece and Italy, Macedonian Studies Society, Thessaloniki 1971].
These schools were guided by papal missionaries whose aim was not merely the conversion of individuals to Uniatism, but primarily the alteration of the Orthodox mindset of entire Orthodox populations through the philolatinist activity of many of their graduates.
But even in our own times, the Vatican openly supports and strengthens Uniatism in various ways.
Since the beginning of the Orthodox–Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue, Uniate theologians have participated in the Joint Theological Commission, despite the strong and explicit demand of the 3rd Pan-Orthodox Conference that they should not participate (Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, vol. II, Athens 1965, p. 38).
Pope John Paul II played a decisive role in the revival of Uniatism in Eastern Europe.
Through the Balamand Agreement (1993), apart from its other serious theological errors, the existence of the Uniate churches was officially recognized and legitimized, even with the signatures of certain Orthodox Churches.
Pope John Paul II, in a confidential letter to the Roman Catholic co-chairman of the Dialogue, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, overturned the line of the Joint Theological Commission at the Baltimore meeting (2000) and led the Dialogue to shipwreck for the sake of the Uniates.
He wrote:
“It must be stated to the Orthodox (at the Baltimore session) that the Eastern Catholic (=Uniate) Churches within the Church of Rome enjoy the same appreciation as any other Church that is in communion with Rome.”
(Evangelos D. Theodorou, Recent Remarks of Cardinal Walter Kasper on the Contacts between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, EKKLISIA, April 2008, p. 287)
This caused the righteous indignation and resignation of His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia from his co-presidency.
The current Pope, Benedict XVI, following the same line, blesses and congratulates the Uniate Church in Ukraine (Catholiki, no. 3046/18-4-2006), brought a Uniate bishop with him during his visit to the Phanar in November 2006, declared from Ephesus that “the best way towards unity in the Church, in his view, is that of Uniatism” (Orthodoxos Typos, 8/12/2006), and now sends a new Apostolic Exarch to Athens!
c) The Ecumenist Tolerance Toward Uniatism
The ecumenist tolerance shown toward Uniatism is, from an ecclesiological standpoint, extremely problematic. In order to avoid allegedly interrupting the Theological Dialogue, unacceptable concessions have been made—and continue to be made—by certain Orthodox primates and theologians. The courageous and deeply Orthodox theological language of the late Patriarchs of Constantinople, with which they condemned the abhorrent Unia, has fallen silent for the sake of the theologically baseless “dialogue of love” initiated by Patriarch Athenagoras. A classic text in this regard remains the strict Encyclical against Uniatism (Ecclesiastical Truth, Constantinople, March 31, 1907) of the late Patriarch Joachim III. Likewise, the synodal statements and encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs against Uniatism (A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta Hierosolymitikēs Stachyologias, vol. 2, Brussels 1963, pp. 314, 389, 395–396; and I. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. II, Graz-Austria 1968, pp. 821–859 [901–939] and 860–870 [940–950]) have slipped into oblivion as “polemical tactics,” allegedly unfitting for today’s era of “reconciliation.”
The Orthodox conscience now wonders:
On what theological basis is this ecumenist tolerance toward Uniatism founded? What has changed in the ecclesiology and theology of the Uniate churches that would justify the courteous acceptance of their bishops and clergy? When have the Uniates shown signs of ecclesiological correction—either by becoming fully Roman Catholic or by returning to the bosom of the Eastern Church? Under what rationale does their “right” to exist as separate communities exempt them from the obligation to be restored ecclesiologically? Have we perhaps abolished our ecclesiological criteria?
Undoubtedly, the only possible explanation for the ecumenist tolerance of Uniatism is a gradual slide into a previously unknown ecclesiology—one that overturns the traditional Ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church and aligns itself with the secularized mentality of our age.
d) The Vatican Misleads the Orthodox
The Vatican uses the Theological Dialogue as a means of misleading the Orthodox faithful and altering their ecclesiological mindset. While the Unia is being strengthened by the Vatican and the Uniates enjoy the acceptance of Orthodox primates, the Theological Dialogue continues, with the discussion of the thorny issue of Uniatism postponed to the future (Belgrade Assembly, 2006). The consciences of Orthodox believers are gradually being dulled, and the problem is shifted from ecclesiology to sociology.
The clear and crystalline Orthodox Ecclesiology retreats day by day, giving its place to the vague and syncretistic ecclesiology of the so-called “sister churches.” Orthodox ecumenist theologians are willing to support novel positions on theological matters that have been decisively and irrevocably settled for centuries by the Holy Fathers.
Current characteristic examples of such views include, among others: the renaming of the Filioque heresy as “a different theological approach that does not touch upon the essence of the doctrine”; the characterization of the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical distortions of Roman Catholicism as “legitimate diversity”; and the presentation of the papal Primacy of authority as an alleged Primacy of service.
Moreover, the pious Orthodox people are bombarded by the media with messages of “reconciliation” and images of “mutual recognition,” resulting in the weakening of the Orthodox mindset of the faithful—until now a strong bulwark against the global ambitions of papism. In the name of Theological Dialogue, unacceptable joint prayers and worship events take place, in violation of the Holy Canons, even to the point of the improper liturgical embrace during an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and the “blessing” of the Orthodox flock by the Pope.
The culmination of these canonical violations occurred last May, on the Sunday of the Samaritan Woman, with the unexpected intercommunion of the Romanian bishop of Banat, Nikolaos, with the Uniates of Romania—a fact that provoked strong protest from Romanian monks in both Romania and the Holy Mountain, and caused deep concern among all Orthodox regarding the aim of this scandalous act.
With documents such as that of Ravenna (2007), full of deliberate ambiguities and theological sophistries, the Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics is already moving toward a uniate-type recognition of papal Primacy. Particularly noteworthy is the interview of Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Vatican Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, as commented on by the French-language magazine S.O.P.:
“In the West, we experienced the development that culminated in the Second Vatican Council with the establishment of papal primacy of authority and infallibility—developments that the Orthodox never accepted. It is necessary to discuss how to interpret these different developments on the foundation of the first millennium. We must also consider, Kasper said, how the Primacy of Rome will function, while it must be clear that there already exist ‘two Codes of Canon Law’ within the Catholic Church: one for the Latin Church and another for the Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome. According to these codes, primacy is exercised differently in the Latin Church than in the Eastern Churches. We do not wish to impose on the Orthodox the system currently in force in the Latin Church. In the case of restoring full communion, a new form of primacy must be found for the Orthodox Churches,” he added.
Equally memorable is the response of the Russian bishop Hilarion Alfeev to these statements, as published in the same magazine:
“‘To what new type does he refer?’ asked the Russian theologian, hinting that it could indeed refer to ‘what already exists in the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome,’ that is, to Uniatism. ‘In other words, once again we are being asked to accept a uniate interpretation of the primacy of the bishop of Rome,’ Bishop Hilarion observes. ‘If this is the “step forward,” I very much fear that such progress cannot inspire the Orthodox, who see Uniatism as a contradiction of their ecclesiology and a betrayal of Orthodoxy. In 1993, at Balamand, Catholics and Orthodox had concluded that Uniatism cannot constitute a model of unity, and now, fifteen years later, the president of the Pontifical Council is urging us to accept the uniate interpretation of Roman primacy,’ he added, concluding: ‘We do not need a new Unia. We need strategic cooperation that excludes all forms of proselytism. We also need to continue the theological dialogue—not to transform the Orthodox into Uniates but to clarify the ecclesiological points of disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox.’”
It is comforting that the Orthodox conscience reacts against false interpretations of Primacy, which in the universal Church is exercised by an Ecumenical Council, as stated clearly and officially in 1973 by the late Patriarch Demetrios, a position successfully analyzed by Professor Evangelos Theodorou.
The ordination of the new Uniate bishop in Athens constitutes yet another strong blow by the Vatican against Orthodoxy—specifically here, against the Church of Greece. The collective Orthodox response of recent years (especially the Message of the Primates of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches), concerning the activities of the Uniates, was met with the usual dismissive reply of the Vatican: its unconditional support of Uniatism. Thus, the question becomes even more pressing: What meaning does the Theological Dialogue have when Uniatism is approved, blessed, and strengthened by the Vatican?
Orthodox shepherds with sensitive doctrinal and ecclesiastical discernment understand that the Orthodox Church is being mocked and that the Orthodox flock is endangered when Theological Dialogues take place under such conditions. The pious Orthodox faithful likewise become troubled when they realize that after a century of contacts and nearly thirty years of official Dialogues, the goal is not for Roman Catholics to rediscover the Orthodox Faith and return to communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church—that is, the Orthodox—but rather for them to be offered assurances of “Orthodoxy.”
It is understandable that the faithful will not agree with such a prospect. They endure for a time, so that premature schisms are not created within the Church, but they are not willing to accept a synodal affirmation of uncanonical actions. Even more so, they will not tolerate concessions in doctrinal matters or their synodal ratification. Their unshakable criterion of Orthodoxy remains the dogmatic teaching of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers, together with the canonical order of the Orthodox Church.
Whenever they see these two pillars of Orthodoxy violated, they feel sorrow and pain, and they implore the Lord to protect His Church, to raise up bishops as guardians of divine dogmas and holy canons, and they pray that the moment never comes when those who betray the “faith once delivered to the saints” must be placed outside ecclesiastical communion. For, according to the declaration of the Patriarchs of the East, they are conscious that
“Among us neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce innovations, because the defender of religion is the very body of the Church—that is, the people themselves, who desire their faith to remain eternally unchanged and identical to that of their Fathers.”
Fr. Georgios Kapsanis
Source: (Periodical Parakatathiki, Issue 60)
