Filaret and his OCU disciples: the final act of the struggle for the "legacy"
The events surrounding Filaret are a true drama of an elderly person.
On November 5, 2025, the nearly 97-year-old head of the UOC KP, Filaret, was brought to St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. According to OCU representatives, the visit was of a reconciliatory nature. The “Patriarch” (who, for some reason, was called “His Holiness” instead of “Honorary” on the OCU website) supposedly came voluntarily to meet with OCU leaders. According to Filaret's associates and a significant part of the UOC-KP, the events looked different: their leader was brought in a state of emotional distress, under the influence of medication, unaccompanied by his “bishops” and “clergy”. Both at Dumenko’s residence and at St. Michael’s Cathedral, Filaret, according to UOC-KP supporters, was deliberately presented to cameras as if he were “reconciling” with Epifaniy and his entourage.
This episode caused a significant resonance, not only because the very fact of "reconciliation" (if it took place) completely contradicts everything Filaret said about Dumenko and Zoria, but also because at the end of October, Filaret published a "Spiritual Testament" in which he explicitly distanced himself from the OCU and forbade OCU representatives from conducting his funeral.
The appearance of this document and the subsequent events gave rise to various versions and speculations.
What happened?
On October 19, 2025, Filaret signed a "Spiritual Testament" at St. Volodymyr's Cathedral in Kyiv. According to UOC-KP representatives, this was done with a "clear mind" and in the presence of "bishops" and "clergy". The document became publicly available and once again reminded of Filaret's attitude towards the OCU. (The text of the testament largely repeats Filaret's public statements after the "Unification Council" of 2018: he declared himself the head of the UOC-KP, denied any connection with the OCU, and forbade the OCU from conducting his funeral.)
Already on October 20, 2025, OCU spokesperson Ivan (Yevstratiy) Zoria stated that the "testament" was a forgery and questioned the patriarch's mental state. And here it is worth recalling the rather strange statement by the OCU at the end of August about Filret's "obvious health deterioration". And it is all the more unusual because just a couple of days later, the "patriarch" appeared at a "service" at St. Volodymyr's Cathedral.
Shortly afterwards, photos appeared online showing bruises and wounds on Filaret’s body, and his supporters claimed that the “patriarch” had been beaten by relatives looking after him – his niece Inna Denysenko and her son Dmytro Kurylenko.
According to UOC-KP lawyer Neonila Sydorenko, the relatives betrayed Filaret: "The Patriarch was a consistent inspirer in the struggle to preserve the patriarchal structure of the church. He fought for years for autonomous functioning from the OCU. His family knew and acted in unison with him. They condemned the actions of Epifaniy, who, among other things, robbed the Patriarch. Now the family has conspired with criminals! In front of the whole country!"
It was these people who brought Filaret to St. Michael's Monastery on November 5, 2025. This was followed by a stream of statements, including from UOC-KP representatives, who called the incident a "kidnapping" and an attempt to force the "patriarch" into actions beneficial to the OCU.
Testament: why is it important?
For UOC-KP supporters, Filaret's "testament" is of great importance, as it clearly expresses a distancing from the OCU, and thus – the preservation of the status of those chosen by Filaret himself. At the same time, for the OCU, the "testament" is a threat. Because if it is recognized as valid, then in the eyes of Ukrainian society, Filaret's funeral will gain not only spiritual but also, in some sense, political significance, allowing claims to inherit everything associated with Denysenko's name. And, importantly, to retain control over the property (even if nominal). Simply put, the question is not so much about a text as about who will become the holder of the symbols and the continuer of Filaret's "line", as well as whether his supporters will remain at St. Volodymyr's Cathedral and the residence on Pushkinska (36 Chykalenko). At the same time, we all understand that Filaret, despite all the troubles he brought to the Church, is a significant figure for the Ukrainian state. And therefore, both the funeral and the burial place have great political (and not only ecclesiastical) significance for Ukrainian society and the state.
OCU's statements: “a fake” and doubts about mental capacity
The OCU's reaction was twofold: on the one hand, representatives of the structure spoke of "care" for the "Honorary Patriarch", on the other hand, OCU officials publicly questioned the authenticity of the "testament" and, more importantly, Filaret's mental capacity. Ivan (Yevstratiy) Zoria explicitly stated that the document was falsified, arguing that it did not match the style of the “patriarch” and was signed by a person incapable of making a reasoned decision. The narrative that “Filaret is old and not in his right mind” is not new. Zoria has repeatedly claimed that the “patriarch” is incapable of making reasoned decisions.
It is clear that for the OCU, this is a very convenient rhetoric that allows them to attribute Filaret's disagreement with the OCU's policy to his age and "lack of sound mind". But convenience alone is not proof, as you would agree. On the other hand, UOC-KP representatives believe that Denysenko is being deliberately medicated. In support of their position, they cite Zoria's words, who in 2019 already spoke of medical interventions allegedly affecting the "patriarch's" health. Here are his words: "On the Intercession of last year, the patriarch, together with Metropolitan Makariy, served a prayer service on Sophia Square. He gave a sermon, and there is a video recording – it is noticeable that the patriarch felt well. Literally less than a couple of weeks later, here, at Ukrinform, a press conference is held. This is a completely different state. It seems that he aged ten years, he spoke with difficulty, looked bad. As far as I understood, it was related to the recommendation to take certain medical drugs... The situation was strange because he was recommended to take certain medications, and he sharply began to lose working capacity: speaking worse, moving worse. And all this happens at such a critical moment. We began to look for the reason, and our only conclusion: the effect of the new medication. As soon as he stopped taking it, he returned to normal form within a week."
To a clarifying question about whether Zoria himself controlled what "Patriarch" Filaret was taking, he replied: "I have never had any relation to the medical part. The patriarch has his niece, who is a doctor by profession." Since this happened once, UOC-KP believes, it may well happen a second time.
Health condition and "unseemly" facts
Filaret's supporters in their publications (Telegram channels, UOC-KP's press releases) indicate that at the end of August, the "patriarch's" condition sharply deteriorated and he stopped publicly leading services. At the same time, access to him by UOC-KP “bishops” and “clergy” was restricted – allegedly at the initiative of his relatives and the staff caring for him.
In addition, photos appeared online showing bruises on his head, hematomas on his hands, and a red mark on his back – all of which looked rather unsightly. It is important to emphasize that, from a medical standpoint, the presence of wounds and bruises in a 97-year-old person can have many explanations – from the natural fragility of skin and blood vessels to side effects of medication or accidental injury. However, in this context, these signs appeared too suspicious, and Filaret’s supporters interpret them as evidence of possible manipulation involving Denysenko.
The "Testament” and the signature
The key argument of Filaret’s supporters is that the document was signed “with a clear mind” and in the presence of dozens of witnesses – UOC-KP “bishops” and “priests” (there are photos) – and that there were attempts to interrupt the procedure by those in his immediate circle (including Mykhailo, the son of Inna Denysenko). However, these attempts were stopped.
If it is confirmed that the signature was made in the presence of witnesses and without pressure, this would significantly weaken the OCU’s claims about Filaret’s incapacity.
The version of Filaret’s forced transfer to St. Michael’s Monastery
The main reason to doubt the voluntariness of the November 5 visit is the absence of the “patriarch’s” own UOC-KP “clergy”. According to statements from the Kyiv Patriarchate representatives, who condemned what happened, Filaret was not accompanied by those who usually surrounded him. Instead, he was accompanied only by close relatives and individuals described as “outsiders” or “representatives of the security services”.
This circumstance appears suspicious: if Filaret had truly decided to take such a step and was fully conscious, then at the very least, representatives of St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral or some “hierarch” of the UOC-KP should have accompanied him. That is why supporters of the “patriarch” call what happened “coercion” and view it as an attempt to “lead” Filaret into creating a picture of “reconciliation”, thereby relieving others of responsibility for the future of the UOC-KP.
At the same time, there are growing claims about intentions to “legalize” control over the property of the Kyiv Patriarchate after Filaret’s death. Denysenko himself has repeatedly spoken about this. For example, in a Hromadske TV broadcast on February 10, 2020, Filaret said: “What is the struggle between the OCU, headed by Metropolitan Epifaniy, and the UOC-KP about? It’s about property,” he said. “Metropolitan Epifaniy wants to seize the property of the Kyiv Patriarchate. So, the essence of it all comes down to a struggle for property. If I were to give it up, they would not need a patriarch. That means they are concerned not so much with the spiritual as with the material.”
Filaret also emphasized that there are no court rulings stating that the property of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” belongs to the OCU, only the desire and envy of the OCU head, Epifaniy Dumenko.
It is clear that for UOC-KP supporters, possession of St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral and the residence on Pushkinska Street represents not only the right to their own “narrative”, but also a chance for continued existence. For the OCU, however, these assets are a resource that provides legitimacy before the masses and state institutions. Dumenko and his circle understand that St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral is not St. Michael’s; to possess it means to gain “access” to the historical memory of the UOC-KP. They also hope it will bring an influx of parishioners and enhance their authority in society and before the government.
Possible scenarios for conflict development
It is clear that the OCU will continue to claim that Filaret lacked capacity while signing the document. In turn, UOC-KP supporters also allege his incapacity but on the day of his visit to Dumenko. Who is right?
It is quite obvious that both sides are ready to wage an information war: there will be Telegram posts, appeals to the faithful, and attempts to mobilize international church structures.
But what possible developments could this story take? Most likely, the OCU will first attempt a kind of “soft raiding”, achieving its goals through public approval and, if possible, presenting the situation as “Filaret’s last will” or as his “reconciliation” with the OCU.
A more forceful scenario is also possible, in which OCU representatives, with the support of local authorities, might attempt to seize the buildings (and they certainly have plenty of experience in such actions). However, the UOC-KP does not intend to surrender. For instance, “Archbishop” Nikodim of Sumy has already expressed firm support for the “patriarch” and described the events of November 5 as an “attempt to liquidate” the UOC-KP.
He emphasized that the “testament” was signed in the presence of “bishops” and that the “patriarch” was of sound mind. The same was stated by “Archbishop” Danyil of Zhytomyr, who added that what he saw at St. Michael’s was “cynicism and hypocrisy”. Meanwhile, UOC-KP lawyer Neonila Sydorenko believes that the “patriarch” and his “Church” face a real threat of raiding and has called for a council to defend the rights of the UOC-KP.
Why does all this look like an attempt to “prepare the ground”?
Within the OCU, there is hope that the actions taken in recent months will help create the conditions for a “painless” transfer of UOC-KP property. The public image of “reconciliation,” as conceived by its organizers, could serve as the basis for claiming the moral right to organize Filaret’s funeral and, consequently, the right to symbolically close the “Filaret era”. At the same time, it is quite possible that efforts to re-register property and establish ownership rights over the cathedral and residence have already been underway for some time. If these actions are backed by the authorities, then even resistance from the UOC-KP might not prevent the properties from falling under OCU control.
In any case, there is every reason to believe that after Filaret’s death, the OCU will attempt to establish control over both the material and symbolic legacy of the UOC-KP as quickly as possible. Indeed, the UOC-KP should focus on proving that the signature on the “testament” was made with a clear mind. To do so, it needs not to shout, but to publish a video recording, a list of those present, and their testimonies. Likewise, if there are suspicions of psychotropic drugs being used or improper care, an independent medical examination should be demanded and its results made public.
In addition, UOC-KP lawyers should long ago have requested extracts from state property registers and sought to verify the legality of any re-registrations (if such occurred). According to Filaret himself, OCU head Epifaniy Dumenko, together with former President Petro Poroshenko, “somehow re-registered all the property of the Kyiv Patriarchate in the name of the OCU, took everything they could, and, most importantly, removed the Kyiv Patriarchate from registration.” All this needs to be checked and its legality clarified, since Filaret insisted that the house on 36 Pushkinska Street was built by him back in 1975.
“According to the city council’s decision, it belongs as the property to the Kyiv Patriarchate. Likewise, the house on 3/5 Desiatynna Street is the property of the Kyiv Patriarchate because it was built with an investor’s funds. They can make any decisions they want, but the ownership documents are in our possession,” Filaret stated.
Conclusion
The events surrounding Filaret are a true drama of an elderly man. Each of us dreams of spending our old age surrounded by loving people – family, children, and friends. Bishops (or those who call themselves such) wish for the same. Only instead of family, they hope to see before them, in the twilight of life, a grateful flock and worthy disciples.
For Filaret, things have turned out differently. Today, he is being pulled in different directions like a powerless puppet by people he himself once raised to be this way. They do not care about Filaret himself; they care about his property, about using his image and authority for their own benefit. Of course, one can feel human sympathy for him. But it must be admitted that such an outcome of the life of the former Metropolitan of Kyiv is logical.
Many believers, priests, and bishops of the UOC prayed for Filaret and hoped that, at the end of his life, he would find the strength to repent.
But it seems that such strength is no longer there.
