The Problem of Uniatism “Shielded from Criticism”

V. Charalambous, theologian | July 28, 2026

 

Unfortunately, the problem of the Unia is continually increasing and becoming more acute. Regrettably, the change in the attitude of certain Orthodox toward the Unia is contributing to this expansion. The increase in the activities of the Uniates, chiefly in the Slavic countries, is a fact.

The Papal Uniates took advantage of the situation following the fall of the atheistic communist regimes and employed—and continue to employ—various means to lead unsuspecting Orthodox Christians into Papism. The outward “attire” of the Uniate leaders alone is sufficient to deceive unsuspecting Orthodox Christians.

The recent favor shown toward the Uniates—not only by the regime in Ukraine, but also by Orthodox who oppose the only Church in Ukraine recognized by the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches—explains much and also contributes to the increase of the Uniates in that country.

It is sufficient merely to take into account the anti-ecclesiastical hostility of the Uniates toward the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, as well as toward the Patriarchate of Russia, long before the so-called Unification Council in Ukraine, which brought about the disruption of ecclesiastical unity.

It should also be noted that the Uniates do not confine themselves merely to this “tactic,” but have also violently seized many Orthodox churches. Unfortunately, certain Orthodox have forgotten all this, for obvious reasons.

Have we forgotten the attitude of the Popes toward the Unia? Can we forget the attitude of the Popes toward the Unia? Let us recall that Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), in an encyclical concerning the incorporation into Papism of the Uniates of Ruthenia, who in the United States present themselves as the “Byzantine Catholic Church,” did not confine himself merely to referring to the reception of these Uniates into Papism, but also expressed his sorrow that “the happy day has not yet come when all the peoples of the East will return to the Papal ‘flock.’” Naturally, he also did not fail to refer to the Papal primacy of jurisdiction, to the “See of Peter” as the center of “Catholic unity,” as he characterized it.

Pope Pius XII also noted in his encyclical the concern of Pius X over the emigration of the Uniates of Ruthenia to the United States, because, as he said, they were unfamiliar with the Latin rites. The Pope, who is outside the Church, brazenly expressed the wish that “the happy day may come when all the peoples of the East will return to the Papal ‘flock.’” Is this not, after all, what concerns them? So many of our recent Saints have emphasized this.

Let us recall that Pope John XXIII (1958–1963) emerged as a protector of the Unia through the relevant decree of the Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, concerning the so-called “Eastern Catholic Churches,” as the Papists call the Uniate churches, which are neither Churches, nor Eastern, nor Catholic, nor even Byzantine, as they like to call themselves, deceiving unsuspecting Orthodox Christians in their effort to increase their numbers.

Let us recall that Pope Paul VI (1963–1978), in a decree of his (21 November 1964) concerning the rites of the so-called “Eastern Churches,” that is, the Uniates, in which the assertion of the Papal primacy of authority and the “supremacy of the Roman Pontiff” predominates, referred to the role of the Uniates in the “promotion of Christian unity.” Of what unity do they speak? Do they mean unity under the Pope, who is outside the Church? Is this not, after all, what concerns them?

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013) appointed a Papal “bishop” for the very small number of Uniates in Athens. Certain persons who regard Papism as the “other lung” of the Church, regardless of the fact that Orthodox Ecclesiology teaches otherwise, were not troubled by this.

Anyone who consults Papal sources will perceive the deceitful nature of the creation of the Uniates. In the Das Typisch Katholisch Lexikon, the Uniate “churches” are deceitfully described as “churches that possess the Orthodox Tradition,” with the addition that they are united with Rome. The Uniates are indeed united with Papism, but they certainly do not possess the Orthodox Tradition.

This reference also demonstrates how the Orthodox Tradition is understood within Papism. When they confuse the Orthodox Tradition with Uniate “attire,” or with other practices of the Uniates, what can one say? This also proves that Papism will never abandon its errors. And, naturally, the Unia, with this “attire,” will continue to deceive unsuspecting Orthodox Christians.

The Papists “know” this quite well, which is why they agreed to “condemn” the Unia in Vienna, at the meeting between Orthodox and Papists in 1990. It should be noted, however, that although the Unia was condemned in Vienna at the meeting between Orthodox and Papists in 1990, and at Freising in the same year, unfortunately, in the Balamand text the Uniate “churches” are called “Eastern Catholic Churches,” thereby nullifying their previous condemnation. Unfortunately, the Papal “protection” of the Unia leaves no room for hope that the Papists will change their stance on this matter.

What is even more lamentable is that, after the so-called Unification Council in Ukraine, which brought about the disruption of ecclesiastical unity, certain Orthodox forgot the deceitfulness of the Uniates, leaving the Unia beyond criticism and confining themselves to an anti-ecclesiastical polemic against the Russian Church and against the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine recognized by the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Consequently, such an attitude contributes to the expansion of the Unia. The hostility of certain Orthodox toward the Patriarchate of Russia and toward the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine recognized by the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches makes the shielding of the Unia from criticism even more dangerous.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_67.html