Kiev, 01 July 2019
Photo: spzh.news
It is no secret that “Honorary Patriarch” Philaret is currently attempting to organize a rebellion or schism against the actual head of the already schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) “Metropolitan” Epiphany.
Now, Philaret recently declared in an interview with Comments.ua, that he has evidence that Epiphany, his former protégée, is in fact the illegitimate son of a dead Hierarch of the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate”, which Philaret is refusing to dissolve, as the Tomos of the OCU granted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople demands.
According to Philaret, Epiphany is in fact the son of “Metropolitan” Daniel Chokalyuk. When asked in an interview what relationship he has to Epiphany, Philaret said:
He has no relation to me. He is the child of the late Metropolitan Daniel Chokalyuk. Epiphany was Daniel’s illegitimate son, and he was raised in the Chokalyuk family. There is already evidence of this. Prior to this, there were rumors, but now we have evidence…”
While it must be said that Philaret is a habitual liar, there is a strong resemblance between Epiphany (see above) and Daniel (see below).
Daniel Chokalyuk. Photo: Spzh.news It is very hypocritical of Philaret to pretend as if he was innocent and unaware in this affair, seeing as Philaret is currently the only source concerning Epiphany’s shady family relations, whereas there is very strong evidence that Philaret himself was illegally married as a monastic and Hierarch. This letter seems to describe the brutal way he treated his children and their grandmother from his daughter.
While Philaret revealed this information about Epiphany to scandalize him, it seems to completely backfire, because of course, you cannot blame or punish a child for being born illegitimate, while you certainly can blame people like “Patriarch of Kiev” Philaret, not only for the story of his secret family, but because a “Kiev Patriarchate” Hierarch had an illegal son. Even if Philaret claims he did not know at the time, which is highly unlikely, it serves to further illustrate the corruption within his own schismatic “Patriarchate”.
And as for Epiphany, it doesn’t matter if Daniel was his father or not, because Philaret certainly made him everything he is now. It is perhaps the only truthful thing Philaret said in this matter, the fact that in his words, if he is truly under anathema, then Epiphany is not even a priest let alone a bishop or primate. Philaret is the poisoned fountain from which Epiphany and practically all the young bishops of the Kievan Patriarchate come from. And if, as Patriarch Bartholomew himself has said, the Kiev Patriarchate does not and never has existed, then from what source did Epiphany receive his ordination?
Whether Epiphany is the son of Daniel or Philaret or no one in particular, as a “hierarch”, or even a “priest” he was born unto schism from the very beginning.
