ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ

By Helleniscope’s Editorial Team

Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv (Mykhailo Denysenko, 1929–2026) was a towering but deeply controversial figure in modern Ukrainian Orthodoxy—admired by some as a nation-builder, and criticized by others as a cleric who bent both tradition and authority to his will.

He rose through the ranks of the Soviet-era Church with notable speed, becoming Metropolitan of Kyiv in the 1960s, a position that made him one of the most powerful Orthodox leaders in Ukraine under Moscow’s authority. For years, he navigated the tightly controlled religious environment of the USSR, building influence and connections that would later shape his ambitions.

Those ambitions became unmistakable after the Soviet Union collapsed. As Ukraine declared independence, Filaret pushed aggressively for an independent national church, no longer subordinate to the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. His campaign culminated in a dramatic break in 1992, when he helped establish a rival church structure and eventually declared himself patriarch. The move triggered his excommunication and cemented a long-running schism.

But beyond the institutional conflict, Filaret’s personal life became a source of scandal. In a tradition where bishops are required to be celibate monks, allegations emerged that he had maintained a long-term relationship and even fathered children—claims that his opponents used to challenge both his moral authority and canonical legitimacy. For critics, this was not merely a personal failing but a fundamental violation of the discipline expected of someone in his position.

Supporters, however, often dismissed these accusations as politically motivated or secondary to his larger mission. They saw in him a leader willing to defy both Moscow and convention in pursuit of a Ukrainian church independent in both name and spirit.

Late in life, his central goal was partially realized with the recognition of a new Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Yet even then, Filaret’s relationship with the new structure was strained, and he found himself increasingly sidelined from the very institution his struggle had helped bring into existence.

He died in Kyiv on March 20, 2026, at the age of 97. His legacy remains sharply divided: to some, a determined architect of religious independence; to others, a polarizing figure whose career was marked as much by defiance and controversy as by conviction.

March 20, 2026, n.stamatakis@aol.com   www.helleniscope.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.

TO SUPPORT HELLENISCOPE OR BECOME A SUBSCRIBER, LINK HERE!!

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

12 COMMENTS

  2. Uniatism is largely the reason for the current war in Ukraine, as it is Uniatism that gave birth to a distinct Ukrainan national identity. The people of Kievan Rus preferred an ecclesial union with Rome rather than being subservient to Moscow under such tyrannical Tsars as Ivan the Terrible and Peter the “Great”. Ukraine of course also suffered greatly under the Soviets.

    If there is anything good at all about the current war in Ukraine, it might just be that both Ukraine and Russia are finally being purged of Sovietism. There was no such purge of Sovietism after the collapse in 1991. There were no trials and imprisonments of all those bad Soviet actors. To the contrary, Soviet figures like Lenin and Joseph Stalin retained their popularity after the collapse, and ex-Soviets, like Putin and Patriarch Kirill, continued to run the country.

    Metropolitan Filaret was indeed part of that Soviet machine, and it is said that he retained a Soviet mindset even after going into schism with Moscow in 1992. He was certainly an imperfect figure with a messy legacy.

    However, Metropolitan Filaret, to his credit, never joined the Uniates. He certainly could have. Instead, he yearned for Ukraine to be an autocephalous Orthodox nation, not under Rome and not under Moscow. Again and again, he petitioned both Moscow and Constantinople for autocephaly. Those requests were ignored for decades, but he persisted.

    Were it not for Metropolitan Filaret, perhaps the Uniates would have a much more dominant position in Ukraine today.

    • Joseph, you always distort the truth and seem to idolize those that betray the Church. Your propaganda does not work! “Metr.” Filaret was a schismatic, just like OCU. They will have to answer to God for this, just like the Schismatic-creator in chief, Barto, who went against the will of the Ukrainian people and created a “church” by force, that most Ukrainians will not join. Schism is a great sin. Filaret was nothing but a charlatan that betrayed the believers. Not only he was not a metropolitan or a patriarch, but he was not even a monk since he had children. Not much of a father either, ask his daughter.

    • Filaret didn’t join the Uniates? But he “joined” the concubines that gave him offspring during his glory days as a KGB plant in the church, right? Quite a “legitimate” role model…quite the example of a man honoring his own name “Filaretos = lover of righteousness”…

      He self-proclaimed himself to be a “patriarch” AFTER he was deposed by Moscow, and somehow you call this “yearning”? The Church Fathers call this “schism” and “illegal congregation”…

      He also signed the “tomos” for the OCA in the US…another “legitimate” document, isn’t it?

      • In 1991, when he was still a member of the Holy Synod of the canonical Russian Church, Metropolitan Filaret presented a request for Ukrainian autocephaly. That request was unanimously approved and signed by all the canonical Ukrainan bishops. This was shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, and Ukraine had gained political independence. However, the Russian Holy Synod ultimately denied that request, and only then demanded Metropolitan Filaret’s resignation. It was six months later that Metropolitan Filaret was deposed.

        As I stated before, he was an imperfect person with a messy legacy, but he will forever be remembered for his persistence in obtaining Ukrainian autocephaly and for not going under Rome.

    • Joseph, you make a grievous historical error. When those seven Ukrainian Orthodox bishops signed the Union of Brest in 1596, their flocks were completely unawares that they were now united with Rome. Which was easy to do given that the new Ruthenian church was identical liturgically in every way with Orthodoxy. Same language, same rituals, married clergy, etc.

      Many of these Ukrainians/Ruthenians did not realize they were in communion with Rome until they moved to North America and heard the Pope being commemorated in the closing prayers after liturgy.

      In any event, Filaret had asked that the schismatic bodies in the Ukraine not attend or perform his funeral. Although he was a sinner, he knew what charlatans looked like.

      Looks like he didn’t get his wish. Sucks to be him.

      • George, one of the reasons why the bishops of Kiev signed the 1596 Union of Brest was because they resented the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589, seven years prior. They did not want to be subservient to Moscow.

        When Constantinople later gave Moscow the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev in 1686 (it was under duress, and Moscow had already ordained, without permission, Metropolitan Gedeon of Kiev the year prior!), this was heavily protested by the Kievan clergy. It is telling that in the decades following the 1686 act, the Uniate churches in Kiev greatly flourished rather than declined.

        Of course Kiev eventually would become subservient to Moscow with the bloody military rule of Tsar Peter, the also bloody annexation of Kiev by Empress Catherine, and the later bloody rule of the Soviets. While it may be true that many of the people of Kiev did not realize they were in union with Rome, they also didn’t want to be subservient to Moscow.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here