Philaret Denisenko, rehabilitated by Constantinople, serves with schismatic Greek hierarch

Kiev, October 13, 2021

L TO R: "Metropolitan" Auxentios, "Patriarch" Philaret, "Archbishop" Andrei. Photo: L TO R: "Metropolitan" Auxentios, "Patriarch" Philaret, "Archbishop" Andrei. Photo:     

On Sunday, October 10, Philaret Denisenko, the “Patriarch” of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” (KP) concelebrated with a “hierarch” of one of the many schismatic Greek Old Calendarist groups.

While the entire Orthodox world recognized the defrocking, excommunication, and anathematization of Denisenko by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1990s, he was declared a canonical hierarch by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in October 2018. Denisenko was previously the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev, and according to Constantinople, he was unjustly sanctioned by the Russian Church.

In December 2018, Denisenko and his KP joined forces with the schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” in the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) created by Constantinople and ex-President Petro Poroshenko with the backing of the U.S. State Department. Although Denisenko soon left to reform his KP, the OCU still considers him a member of their group, which enjoys the recognition of Patriarch Bartholomew and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the OCU Synod, it would be too Russian to punish Denisenko for going into schism.

This past Sunday, Denisenko concelebrated with “Archbishop” Andrei of Pereyaslav and Bila Tserkva (KP) and “Metropolitan” Auxentios (Marines) of Aegina of the so-called Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece, reports the KP press service.

The self-proclaimed “Patriarch” Philaret (titled “Honorary Patriarch” by Constantinople’s OCU) has a long history of concelebrating with schismatics from Greece, Montenegro, and elsewhere.

The Old Calendarist groups in Greece have a complicated history, with frequent schisms and the formation of new “Synods.” Auxentios seems to have been part of the so-called Florinite Synod, but joined the new “Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece” under “Metropolitan” Auxentios of Patras when a schism occurred in 1985.

He became a hierarch of the schismatic group in 1996, and in December 2002, he was elected Chairman of the Synod. In 2012, he stepped down and returned to his former diocese in Aegina.

And on Sunday, he served with Philaret Denisenko, who is considered a legitimate hierarch by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!


See also
False “Patriarch” Philaret appeals to his friend President Biden for church protection False “Patriarch” Philaret appeals to his friend President Biden for church protection False “Patriarch” Philaret appeals to his friend President Biden for church protection False “Patriarch” Philaret appeals to his friend President Biden for church protection
Biden has shown himself a friend of Constantinople’s schismatic movement in Ukraine, which was focused on the person of Philaret Denisenko for 30 years. While Philaret has departed from the main schismatic body, he still has hopes that his personal connection with President Biden will prove beneficial for him and his KP.
Bishop who left OCU to rejoin Philaret Denisenko accuses Epiphany Dumenko of deception Bishop who left OCU to rejoin Philaret Denisenko accuses Epiphany Dumenko of deception Bishop who left OCU to rejoin Philaret Denisenko accuses Epiphany Dumenko of deception Bishop who left OCU to rejoin Philaret Denisenko accuses Epiphany Dumenko of deception
“Everything is decided according the tradition of the Church of Constantinople—through the decision of the Synod, which is governed by Metropolitan Epiphany. In the OCU, behind the external conciliarity is hidden the control of the narrow circle of Metropolitan Epiphany,” Philaret Panku writes.
Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church
Official History of the Defrocking and Anathematization of Philaret Denisenko
Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church Official History of the Defrocking and Anathematization of Philaret Denisenko
Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church
The Sacred Bishops’ Council is now forced to note with sorrow that Monk Philaret did not heed the call to repentance addressed to him on behalf of the Mother-Church, but in the inter-Council period continued his schismatic activity, which he extended beyond the bounds of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Jason 10/21/2021 6:46 pm
Steve, how do you manage to confuse yourself with “old calendar schismatics”? I speak about you and your very strange and anti-Christian energy that seeks to continually defend arguably the most divisive patriarch of Constantinople that the world has seen since the false council of Florence, and you somehow spin my words to mean that I am speaking of the group you seek to target. Since you hate schismatics so much, you may want to seriously consider whether you should continue down the “wake” path of defending the so-called “green patriarch” since he has de facto made himself a schismatic, and if you join yourself to him, you too become a schismatic! Be careful Steven!! I’m still waiting to hear about your “woke moment”. Can’t wait :-)
Steve10/18/2021 4:29 pm
So when was the "woke" moment of this hierarch of the Greek Old Calendarists? It's all very confusing indeed.
Steve10/17/2021 1:48 am
Jason, it seems ironic that you would frame these schismatic Orthodox as the product of liberal "woke" politics. As Jesse Dominick points out, the Greek Old Calendarists want nothing to do with the Moscow Patriarchate, and I think it's because they consider the MP as way too liberal in their ecumenism. You know, like Patriarch Kirill meeting with Pope Francis and so forth.
Jason10/16/2021 6:13 pm
Not baseless at all Steve. It’s your fruit! Your fruit is genetically modified, soros infused garbage. I’ve seen it elsewhere, and it’s boring, predictable and very redundant. Do you see Steve? I’m simply judging you by your fruit, As I have been commanded to do so by the Holy Lord Jesus Christ whose house your patriotic Turkish patriarch dares to plunder, and you dare to support! So, back to my questions. What was your “woke” moment, or were you born this way? Have you tried to get treatment yet? If your interested in getting help, I’d be happy to direct you to the source that can cure you. Let me know!
Steve10/16/2021 4:52 am
Jason, it sounds like you are making many baseless assumptions here about me personally, and I'm not really sure why.
Jason10/15/2021 6:14 am
Steve, just curious, why are there so many pro-gay laity and bishops in the GOARCH? Do you think that maybe their “leanings” may have some significant affect on their decisions? Maybe their “preference” and sexual lifestyle is causing severe chemical imbalance in their brains leading to their anti-Christian, pro-Soros position. Since you appear to be infected with the same disease, I’d really like to hear how you became such a pro-phanarian? What was your “woke” moment? Did you vote for Obama, Hillary and Biden? Do you think that Biden is a good Catholic? I suppose the answer to the last question has to be a “yes”, since you also believe that P. Bartholomew is a good Christian Patriarch! Final question, how much does Erdogan pay you and your daddy PB?
Panagiotis10/15/2021 1:23 am
I think it is obvious to everyone that politics was involved among ALL PARTIES... Now they created this mess among the Orthodox... That is why I said before we must remain united and just ignore their problems and let them take care of it... We should still go to each other's churches and still support each other...
Herman10/14/2021 5:47 pm
Steve, Ioann, Panagiotis: thank you for your input. It seems to me that a lot of problems and unnecessary trouble and pain and confusion could simply be solved by hierarchs unconditionally refusing to sign things that they don't agree with, no matter the pressure. Because what I see is this: all of the Ukrainian bishops signed that request, all of them. Then Philaret promised to resign at the council, but changed his mind, citing "political pressure" from Moscow. So everyone, on both sides, in this situation was signing and saying things that they later recanted, claiming it was due to "political pressure". It makes it nearly impossible for a simple layman as myself to sort through it all, especially when we are dealing with KGB agents in cassocks (Philaret, confirmed, and... who else?) at that point blurring the line between decisions of the Church, and pressure from the State (whether from Moscow, or Kiev). Lord have mercy...
Jesse Dominick10/14/2021 12:56 pm
Steve, I never heard there were ever any plans to "set up shop in Greece with the Old Calendarists." The Old Calendarists wouldn't want anything to do with the MP anyways.
Ioann10/14/2021 11:49 am
Herman: Steve's answer is probably his own interpretation. Met. Onuphry himself said that the Ukrainian council of bishops was forced under political pressure and pressure from the then Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret to sign the request for autocephaly. Philaret, who lost the election for Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, was determined to become Patriarch of something. When the Ukrainian bishops met again in Moscow, they told the synod what happened, and most withdrew their signatures, Met. Onuphry being one of the first to do so. That was when the Ukrainian Church was granted autonomy--and it now functions almost entirely independently of Moscow, with more independence than the OCU. It is obvious that the Ukrainian autonomous Church is not asking for autocephaly, otherwise it would have joined with the autocephalists long ago. It would have made life easier for them politically, but they would have lost very much spiritually--and they understand this. Bravo to them for choosing the cross of Christ over the broad path.
Steve10/14/2021 4:57 am
Herman, the Russian Church refused the unanimous decision for autocephaly of the 1991 Ukrainian sobor because Patriarch Alexey decided that this would dangerously weaken the Moscow Patriarchate at a crucial time when it needed the strength of the Ukrainian Church. He was right. Most of the Moscow Patriarchate was in Ukraine at the time, and that still might be the case. When Patriarch Kirill celebrates his 75th birthday next month, most of the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate will be present, and the highest showing will likely be bishops from Ukraine.
Steve10/14/2021 4:44 am
Interesting, I guess Russia won't be setting up shop in Greece with the Old Calendarists now.
Panagiotis10/14/2021 12:59 am
Brother Herman and Brother Alexander raised some valid points... The real schismatics are the liberals who will eventually destroy our Church if they are allowed to increase their power... liberalism used to be a dirty word, now they have brainwashed many people ... if I had no other Church to attend except an old calendar Greek Church what do you think I would do?...This term schismatic is being used too much... Do not forget the Russian Church was once considered schismatic as well as the Serbian Church and others... if I walk into an Orthodox Church and it is rightfully preaching the gospel truth which only our Orthodox Church has preached for 2000 years and this church is conservative and identical to other Orthodox Churches, then I could care less if someone calls it schismatic...
Herman10/13/2021 5:53 pm
I have a few questions about the history of the Ukrainian Church that I simply have not ever been able to find an answer to. Perhaps someone can help or point me in the right direction. I understand that in November 1991 a council of the Ukrainian Church was held and it was unanimously - unanimously - decided to appeal to Moscow for a tomos of autocephaly, and it was also unanimously decided that Philaret would be their first hierarch. Metropolitan Onuphry was among the bishops that signed both of these documents at this council. Then in April 1992 the Moscow Patriarchate met in council and did not decide on this matter, but requested that Philaret resign. Philaret agreed, but then a week later recanted his resignation and began the path to schism. My questions - why did the Moscow Patriarchate (1) refuse the unanimous appeal of the Ukrainian Sobor, and (2) why was Philaret asked to resign (after all at this point, prior to his refusal to resign, he seemed to have the unanimous support of his bishops)?
Alex10/13/2021 5:09 pm
Quite the circus!
Alexander Leitner10/13/2021 4:33 pm
The Greek state Church and Constantinople are guilty of all the schisms in greece! The ROCA Was in communion with the Cyprianites. The different schisms appeared mainly because of the question how to Deal with New Calendarists. Are they without grace, are their mysteries valid, etc. Metropolitan Augustinos and the Cyprianites say that until they are not officially condemned their mysteries are valid. Metropolitan Augustinos Was found incorrupt and extremely fragrant. Like St. Glicherie of Romania.
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

to our mailing list

* indicates required