Anathema hits: what Filaret's alliance with Greek Old Calendarists implies

On October 23, 2021, the “bishops' council” of the UOC-KP, chaired by Filaret Denisenko, incorporated into its jurisdiction “Metropolitan” Auxentios of Aegina and Poros together with his diocese of the Greek Old Calendar Church. The "synodal" decision of the UOC-KP states that "this diocese does not belong to the Greek Orthodox Church but is a separate “Old Calendar Church" and "has 70 clergymen, 50 monks working in 10 monasteries." “Metropolitan” Auxentios was granted the title of Chersonesos and Aegina, and the very next day he “concelebrated” Filaret and the “episcopate” of the UOC-KP in his new status.

This news caused huge vibrations. For us, Orthodox, everything is clear on this matter – Ukrainian schismatics have embraced their Greek counterparts. However, it is not that clear for Phanariots, since Filaret Denisenko is a member of the OCU and a “canonical bishop” from the Phanar's point of view. This means that his decision, to varying degrees, will unambiguously affect the fate of both the Phanar and the entire Church, not only the fate of various schismatic structures. Why? Let's figure it out.

Split squared

So, what are the Greek Old Calendarists, admitted to the UOC-KP by Filaret Denisenko?

On March 10, 1924, Archbishop Chrysostomos I (Papadopoulos) of Athens introduced a New Julian calendar or the so-called "new style" into the Church of Greece. This decision was rebuffed by a fairly large number of Greek hierarchs, priests and laity. Some of them (more radical-minded) believed that the "new stylists" had fallen into a split. Others speculated that the "new style" is a violation of the canons of the Church. Both parties blended into the “True Orthodox Church”, only to fall into two branches in 1937: Florinite (named after the founder of the branch, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavouridis of Florina) and Matthew’s (named after the founder of the branch, Archbishop Matthew Karpafakis of Athens).

The Florinites did not say that the "new calendarists" did not have grace, but the Matthewites did not recognize any sacraments of the Greek Orthodox Church, and all of its bishops were considered to have fallen away from Orthodoxy.

Later, as is common with schismatics, the Florinites split into several new structures.

In particular, on October 22, 1985, the so-called "Synod of Auxentios" was born from the Florinite "synod" due to the excommunication of "bishop" Auxentios Pastras, and since Auxentios was ordained by the bishops of the ROCOR, very soon parishes of Russian expatriates began to transfer to him. For example, in 1986, 30 parishes and monasteries in the USA and France passed from the jurisdiction of the ROCOR to Auxentios.

The Synod of Auxentios was shaken by internal feuds for several decades. In particular, in the 90s of the last century, it faced the acute problem of the lack of "bishops". However, there was no one to "ordain" them, since the "bishops" of the "Synod of Auxentios", who did not live in Greece, refused to approve and "consecrate" the candidates proposed by "archbishop" Maxim (the then head of the structure).

Then Maxim solved the problem without their help, viz. he received a certain Demetrios, who called himself “bishop” of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, together with whom he “ordained” 10 new “bishops” for Greece. This Demetrios died in obscure circumstances (right on the street), and what is strange – it happened almost the next day after the last of the above mentioned "ordinations".

Western "bishops" did not recognize these "ordinations", so they split off from Maxim and created their own "church", while Maxim increased the number of his "bishops" to 16 to create the largest synod in Greece at that time. True though, apart from "bishops", he did not have a single "priest" and almost no "laity". The situation stabilized only by the beginning of the 2000s, when each "bishop" of the "Auxentios Synod" had several parishes in his diocese.

On December 6, 2002, after the death of “Archbishop” Maxim Vallianatos, “Metropolitan” Auxentios Martinis of Aegina became the head of this schismatic structure (chairman of its synod). After 8 years he was elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Athens and All Hellas, and later, just a few months later, Auxentios filed a petition for retirement, which was approved by the “synod”. It was this “hierarch” that Filaret Denisenko accepted into his structure on October 23, 2021.

What is Filaret for the OCU and Phanar?

This step back into history was needed in order for us to understand that Auxentios has nothing to do with the canonical Church. This is a schismatic of the first water, in whose "consecration", by the way, participated the above-mentioned Maxim and other "bishops" with a dubious canonical biography.

Until recently, Filaret Denisenko was the same schismatic in the eyes of the entire Orthodox world. After leaving the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he organized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and in 1997 was anathematized by the Russian Church, the decision having been recognized by all Local Churches, including Phanar. However, in 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew unilaterally “canceled” this anathema, and Filaret became part of the newly created Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) with the absurd title of “honorary patriarch” (which he, by the way, rejects). In other words, in the eyes of Phanar and those Churches that entered into communion with the OCU, Denisenko is a canonical bishop. And even his subsequent actions (the re-creation of the schismatic UOC-KP) did not shake this relationship. No bans were imposed on Filaret, his canonical status has not changed in any way since his reinstatement by the Church of Constantinople in 2018.

For example, after Filaret staged a demarche against the OCU and declared that he was no longer the “bishop” of this structure, Dumenko still called him a member of his organization. True though, in a state of "self-isolation", since "there is no need to talk about the existence of a separate structure of the Kyiv Patriarchate, because this church no longer exists, either de jure or de facto, but formed the basis of the only recognized Orthodox Church.” This is how Sergey Dumenko explained the situation.

A little later, Dumenko confirmed that Denisenko “is a hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine” and “all the necessary conditions for his further existence as a hierarch have been created for him.” At the same time, Dumenko said that the OCU did not pay attention to "those anti-canonical and insignificant actions" committed by "honorary patriarch" Filaret. It means they did not pay attention to the whole series of "ordinations" that at that time had already been performed by Denisenko for the UOC-KP he had reincarnated. They did not and do not care because for them he is the “hierarch” of the OCU, while the UOC-KP does not exist. The fact that Filaret is the OCU bishop from the point of view of the OCU is also confirmed on the official website of Dumenko's adepts, where the photo of the OCU leader is immediately followed by the photograph of Denisenko with the “honorable patriarch” caption.

Moreover, not only the OCU, but also Phanar treats him as a legitimate bishop. For example, during a meeting with the former exarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul, Filaret Denisenko was respectfully called the “hierarch of the Church of Ukraine” (Ιεράρχης της Εκκλησίας Ουκρανίας) and the “former Metropolitan of Kyiv”.

In other words, Filaret is the “honorary patriarch” of the OCU for Dumenko and his associates. For Phanar, he is a completely "canonical bishop". The UOC-KP does not exist for them at all.

In this connection the question arises – to what structure did the "honorary patriarch" and "former Metropolitan of Kyiv" Filaret annex the entire schismatic diocese of the Greek Old Calendar Church?

From now on, Phanariots and Archbishop Ieronymos of Greece are simply obliged to consider at least one group of schismatics from Greece to be canonical and in communion with the Church.

How Greek schismatics became “canonical” members of the OCU

Logically, if Filaret is a canonical bishop, then we have no reason to consider those whom he accepted into "Eucharistic communion" as non-canonical. That is, from now on Phanariots and Archbishop Ieronymos of Greece are simply obliged to consider at least one group of schismatics from Greece to be canonical and in communion with the Church.

Because from the point of view of canon law perverted by Phanar, Filaret's actions are virtually impossible to dispute. For the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the OCU, parts of the Hellenic, Cyprus and Alexandrian Churches, Denisenko is neither banned nor anathematized. Then on what canonical basis can the Phanariots and others like them consider his concelebration with Auxentios as "not valid"? None.

On what canonical basis can they consider Auxentios, who concelebrated with the “legitimate bishop” of the OCU, to be not the same “legitimate bishop”? None.

Who will be responsible for Filaret?

If Filaret, as Epiphany claims, is a member of the OCU, then who should be responsible for his actions? Logically, Dumenko should. First of all, he must explain to the Primate of the Church of Greece, Archbishop Ieronymos, how it happened that the schismatics from Greece concelebrated with the bishop of his structure. In this respect there are precedents for explanations.

For example, when “archimandrite” Bojan Bojovic from the so-called Montenegrin Church took part in the “divine service” of the OCU on May 26, 2019 at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral, Epiphany personally apologized to the Serbian Church for concelebrating with the schismatic. Then, two years ago, he sent his closest associate Eustraty Zoria to Montenegro with a letter to Metropolitan Amphilochios. Everything was done so that the apology looked sincere, not formal. Moreover, even the Phanariots wrote excuses for concelebration with the schismatic (Emmanuel of Gaul was also there), and the "penitential" letter from Dumenko to the Serbian Church was written by the direct order of Phanar. This “pardonable” activity is explained by the fact that the Phanariots did not yet leave hopes for the recognition of the OCU by the Serbian Church.

Why doesn't Dumenko run to Archbishop Ieronymos with explanations and apologies? Because the issue of recognition has been "resolved" with the Greeks, and there is no need to bother with "certain" canons or ecclesiastic traditions, so they are simply putting up with it.

Why is Dumenko silent now, when his "bishop" concelebrated with the schismatics from Greece? Why doesn't he run to Archbishop Ieronymos with explanations and apologies? Because the issue of recognition has been "resolved" with the Greeks, and there is no need to bother with "certain" canons or ecclesiastic traditions, so they are simply putting up with it.

What's next?

Now it’s time to ask the most important question – what next? Indeed, if neither the OCU nor Phanar responds in any way to Filaret’s actions, pretending that "nothing is wrong", then other Churches will not turn the blind eye to this scandal.

Most likely, Denisenko will not stop and will continue to "receive" various schismatics who are present to varying degrees in almost every Church. It may happen that all these groups will try to secure at least some kind of "canonical status" through Filaret. It means that a real canonical chaos will begin in the Church, because the boundaries of falsehood and Truth will be simply destroyed. After all, any impostor, who has donned a robe and panagia and concelebrated with Filaret, will demand canonical recognition and Eucharistic communion.

In addition to the lost ecclesiological integrity, there will be no need to repent for schismatics who wish to return to the Church. Why should they repent now if there is Phanar, excuse me, Filaret? If this is the case, then schismatics, even if they enter the Church, will continue to split up, though now they will torment not each other, but the Body of Christ. The worst thing is that there will no longer be any barriers and restrictions to halt them. After all, no canon law, no rules.

A real canonical chaos will begin in the Church, because the boundaries of falsehood and Truth will be simply destroyed. After all, any impostor, who has put on a robe and panagia and concelebrated with Filaret, will demand canonical recognition.

In fact, having lifted the anathema from Denisenko, Patriarch Bartholomew opened the "Pandora's box" and released a virus that undermines the foundations of churchliness in general. The only way out of this situation for Phanar is to anathematize Filaret. But will the Patriarchate of Constantinople take this step? Hardly.

First, Phanar is not used to admitting and correcting its mistakes. If Denisenko is anathematized, the Phanariots will recognize that the Russian Orthodox Church was consistent and right. They will have to recognize that the anathema was imposed on Mikhail Denisenko not for political reasons, but for canonical and ecclesiological violations. This means that the former Metropolitan of Kyiv could return to the Church only canonically, i.e. via repentance, rather than via a stroke of Patriarch Bartholomew's pen. So if there is no canonical path, then the "second" point emanates from here.

Secondly, by anathematizing Denisenko, Phanar will question the entire “OCU project”. It will turn out that the main ideologist and initiator of the Tomos is a professional schismatic, who seeks only one goal – unlimited power. It will turn out that he was accepted into communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople not on the basis of canons, but for completely different reasons. This means that the OCU is a non-canonical formation, because it emerged as a result of a non-canonical decision – the lifting of the anathema from Denisenko.

Thirdly, if the anathema against Denisenko was lifted unlawfully, then what are Sergei Dumenko, Ivan Zoria and other guys wearing panagias, who were "ordained" by the person, excommunicated from the Church?

Thirdly, if the anathema against Denisenko was lifted unlawfully, then what are Sergei Dumenko, Ivan Zoria and other guys wearing panagias, who were "ordained" by the person, excommunicated from the Church?

In a word, no matter how the situation turns out now, it cannot be favorable either for Phanar or for the OCU. There are too many questions, but there are no answers so far. Still, there is one, but Istanbul is too deaf to hear it. This answer is the canons of the Church. The very canons that were trampled by both Filaret and Phanar. If they do not recourse to them, swallowing their pride and overcoming their "privileges", then the risk of sliding into anarchy and chaos is inevitable, which will lead not only to the destruction of canon law, but also to the erosion of the boundaries of the Church.

All this can turn very nasty for the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the first line.