The final act in the case of former Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos will unfold shortly after Epiphany, when the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus is set to impose a new penalty following its decision to depose him from the metropolitan throne.
Phileleftheros understands that the ex-Metropolitan Tychikos faces either suspension or defrocking, unless he appears at the last minute of the Holy Synod’s session having signed the letter of repentance requested by the Synod.
It is noted that, as of yesterday, Tychikos has neither appeared nor sent any message indicating remorse or a willingness to cooperate with the Holy Synod, despite the intervening Christmas holidays, when “spirits in the Church are calmer than ever.”
Phileleftheros is informed that Archbishop George, who reportedly maintains the position that it is not too late for reconciliation even at the last moment of the session, has already contacted Synod members to confirm a date after Epiphany when all members can be present to discuss and decide Tychikos’s future.
Before the decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, sources say that several members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus viewed Tychikos sympathetically and were ready to offer support. However, after the Patriarchate’s ruling in Phanar unanimously upheld the Cyprus Synod’s majority decision to depose him, the situation changed. It is now considered very difficult for him to receive support, even from the six Synod members who had initially voted against his deposition.
It is recalled that the six who voted against deposing Tychikos were Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou, Bishop Pangkratrios of Arsinoe, and the Limassol Metropolitan’s group, which consists of Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol himself, Bishop Nicholas of Amathus, Bishop Epiphanios of Ledra, and Bishop Porphyrios of Neapolis.
Tychikos’s position became more difficult following the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s recommendation that he obey the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus. Specifically, the Patriarchate’s decision included the following, which serves as a message to those who supported him: “It was finally recommended to the former Metropolitan of Paphos that he obey the decisions of the Holy Synod of his Church, both for his own spiritual benefit and for the peace and unity of the Church.”
It is recalled that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, during its review of Tychikos’s file, identified “omissions in the hearing of the case by the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus concerning ‘the provisions of its Charter.’”
Archbishop George addressed these gaps in the Charter during his recent interview with Phileleftheros, announcing that efforts would be made to correct them. The Archbishop stated: “For example: There are many details and many dilatory provisions regarding the administration of justice. Things need to be simplified there.”
The complexity of the procedure was noted some time ago but became more pronounced during the trials of the monks of the Avvakoum Monastery and the trial of the former Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos. Especially where lawyers were involved, a barrage of objections was submitted even over minor issues, prolonging the process, scandalising the public, and contributing to the defaming of the Church.
However, the former Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos was reportedly astonished when he realised that the warning shots he received from Archbishop George regarding his alignment with “defrocked” (schismatic) groups were not merely pressure tactics, and that his throne was genuinely at risk.
Phileleftheros is informed that when church officials warned him that he would face serious consequences if he continued to align with these groups and generally managed the Paphos Metropolis outside the framework that the other Metropolises operate within, he dismissed the warnings, believing he would face no repercussions.
It is known that among other issues, he had opposed the burial of non-Orthodox Christians in Paphos cemeteries, refused to perform some weddings, and maintained contact with schismatic groups, following his own pattern in contrast to the stance held in other metropolitan districts. Even when proceedings were initiated against him by the Holy Synod, he insisted that he was acting correctly, which is attributed to the influence exerted on him by certain individuals, including a cleric who was subsequently defrocked as a schismatic.