Deposition of bishop and fall of the Church: On shocking events in Cyprus

The removal of His Eminence Metropolitan Tychikos from the throne of the Apostolic Metropolis of Paphos has filled not only his flock but also multitudes of the faithful across nearly all Local Orthodox Churches with deep sorrow, anger, and indignation.

The humiliation of the episcopacy – the decline of the Church

Tragically, we are witnessing a painful reality within the Apostolic Church. Whenever episcopal ministry is neglected or devalued in the Church, a deep crisis unfolds. But when that devaluation is enacted by a synodal decision, we must admit with anguish that we are facing decline.

As a parish priest, I am horrified to observe that a simple parish priest in a provincial Greek city enjoys more security in his position than a metropolitan of the second-ranking see of the Apostolic Church of Cyprus. It is frightening that a metropolitan can more easily be removed from his throne than a regular parish rector from his parish. How can we not grieve and be outraged by this humiliation of the episcopal dignity – by the degradation of the episcopal office at the hands of some?

Let us consider the faithful of the Church of Cyprus, especially those in Paphos. What will they now think of their hierarchy? What will their conscience say about the ten bishops who, in a rushed procedure, voted to depose their metropolitan? How can the crisis of confidence among ordinary believers be healed? Power and synodal despotism may appear victorious for now, but they will inevitably backfire, and the damage will not only affect individuals – it will erode the dignity, authority, and credibility of the Synod, and by extension, of the Church itself.

And then, who will be to blame? Certainly not Metropolitan Tychikos and his flock.

Even bishops now face persecution

May 22, 2025, was a dark day for the Orthodox Church – not only because of this unjust deposition. Until now, only priests and deacons had faced persecution from ecumenists and their supporters for remaining faithful to Orthodox tradition and order.

Now, for the first time in our era, we see a bishop being persecuted and subjected to severe punishment – deposition – for standing up for ecclesiastical tradition and order. Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos has been deposed by an unlawful decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus.

What was his “crime”?

• Was he immoral? Certainly not.
• Was he greedy or stealing Church funds? Absolutely not.
• Did he betray the faith by serving or communing with heretics? Of course not.
• Was he covering up abuses or crimes? Not in the least.

His “crime” was wanting to remain faithful to Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition and order.

The Charter of the Church under persecution

As more information comes to light about the Synod’s procedure, the sorrow and outrage only grow. The Charter of the Church of Cyprus was blatantly violated by the majority of the Synod.

I have been carefully listening to Archbishop Georgios’s statements and comparing them with the Church Charter’s provisions regarding ecclesiastical justice. Out of respect for the episcopal office, I will refrain from commenting on some of his remarks.

Let us consider what the Charter stipulates regarding the deposition of a bishop.

The late Archbishop Chrysostomos II, in his opening address to the Holy Synod on September 13, 2010, during the adoption of the new Charter, referred to the provisions concerning the "administration of ecclesiastical justice" and stated with satisfaction that "the new Charter thoroughly regulates the examination of ecclesiastical offenses that may be committed by clerics of any rank... The 1980 Charter did not contain such detailed provisions, and the administration of justice was entrusted to the respective bishop or the Holy Synod, which often acted according to circumstances due to the lack of clear rules."

Not directly, but quite clearly, His Beatitude criticized the previous decisions of the Holy Synod, "which often acted at its own discretion," while at the same time justifying them due to "the absence of clear rules in the former Charter." According to the Archbishop, the current Charter "thoroughly regulates the examination of ecclesiastical offenses" precisely in order to prevent synodal arbitrariness.

Let us briefly review what the current Charter stipulates and what the Holy Synod was obliged to apply in the trial of Metropolitan Tychikos so as not to "act arbitrarily":

Article 14 § 2: “A hierarch is removed from the throne due to a final verdict of removal from office or deposition from the throne.”

Article 14 § 3: “If there are sufficient grounds that a hierarch has committed a serious ecclesiastical offense, the Holy Synod may, by a decision adopted by a three-fourths majority of its members, suspend him from the administration of his diocese and pastoral duties until a final judicial decision is issued.”

Article 79D § 2: “The Holy Synod, consisting of the president and at least twelve hierarchs, adjudicates ecclesiastical offenses committed by hierarchs, imposing penalties... including (c) deposition.”

The Charter requires a final judicial decision in order to depose a metropolitan from his throne. This decision must be rendered by a competent court (the Holy Synod), following a specific procedure established by the Charter, in order to prevent the Synod from “improvising.” In the case of a serious ecclesiastical offense, the Synod may “suspend him from the administration of the diocese and pastoral duties” TEMPORARILY UNTIL A FINAL JUDICIAL DECISION IS MADE. In such a case, a "three-fourths majority" of the members is required, meaning 13 hierarchs.

For temporary suspension from office, the Charter requires 13 votes. For the final deposition from the throne, only 10 votes were gathered.

According to the communiqué of May 22, 2025, from the extraordinary session of the Holy Synod, the Holy Synod "convened as a court, according to Article 79D§2 of the Charter of the Church of Cyprus."

What does it mean that the Holy Synod "convened as a court"?

It means that the Synod must function not under the provisions of the Charter concerning synodal operations (Articles 4–7), but under the provisions relating to the judicial jurisdictional organs of the Church of Cyprus (Articles 78–82 and Appendix B, Articles 1–54). What is provided for church courts is likewise required of the Holy Synod when it convenes "as a court."

It should be noted that the “Final Provision” (Article 54 of Appendix B of the Charter) incorporates into ecclesiastical criminal procedure the norms of the (secular) criminal procedure of the Republic of Cyprus: "Where this text does not provide specific regulations, the provisions of the criminal procedure of the Republic of Cyprus shall apply analogously." This provision is of cardinal importance, as it effectively includes in ecclesiastical proceedings the requirements of a fair trial, as provided for by a modern rule-of-law state (such as the Republic of Cyprus), as well as Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In other words, a cleric of the Church of Cyprus may invoke the provisions of the ECHR (as interpreted, for example, by the European Court of Human Rights), since this is provided for by the Charter of his Church.

Because not everyone has direct access to the text of the Charter, here are the most important provisions related to the case of the Metropolitan of Paphos:

The current Charter, in Appendix B concerning "Criminal Procedure" and especially "Preliminary Proceedings" (Articles 1–19), requires:

Article 2 § 1: "A complaint \[against any cleric] is submitted to the jurisdictional organs of the Church of Cyprus, which forward it to the Investigative Committee, except in cases of minor ecclesiastical offenses by clerics..."

Article 13 § 1: "The Investigative Committee decides, after receiving a complaint from the relevant hierarch... or by order of the Holy Synod, whether or not to conduct an investigation to determine: a) whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that the hierarch has committed an ecclesiastical offense."

Article 13 § 2: "If it considers an investigation necessary, the Investigative Committee appoints one of its members as an investigator..."

Article 13 § 3: "The Investigative Committee supervises the investigator’s work."

Article 14 §§ 1–6: This detailed article describes the especially important and decisive work of the investigator. For example: "The investigator must attempt to examine all aspects of the case in order to establish the essential truth. To this end, he collects any relevant testimonies, regardless of whether they support the guilt or innocence of the accused" (§ 1), "The investigator summons witnesses to his office or visits them, at his discretion, including those designated by the accused" (§ 2), and "When the investigator believes he has collected the necessary evidence, he prepares his report, which he submits along with the investigation materials to the Investigative Committee. The investigator’s report includes a summary of the testimonies and his recommendation as to whether an ecclesiastical offense has been proven and, if so, whether the evidence supports the prosecution of a specific person or persons" (§ 6).

Article 15 § 1: "After the investigation is completed, the Investigative Committee examines and evaluates the investigation materials and the investigator’s report and decides whether to initiate prosecution against a specific person or persons and refer them for open judicial proceedings."

The Charter is perfectly clear: a complaint against a hierarch is referred by the Holy Synod to a five-member Investigative Committee (composed of at least three hierarchs and presbyters), and it is not the Synod but the Investigative Committee that decides whether there are grounds to investigate a hierarch.

If the committee deems an investigation necessary, it appoints one of its hierarch members as the investigator and oversees his work. The investigator’s role is crucial and is directed toward establishing the essential truth behind the complaint. The recommendations in his report about whether an ecclesiastical offense has been committed are significant. However, the decision to initiate prosecution is made by the five-member Investigative Committee (not the investigating hierarch), which receives all materials and the investigator’s report.

According to the Charter, only the five-member Investigative Committee – NOT THE HOLY SYNOD – decides whether to prosecute a hierarch. The Holy Synod has no role in this whatsoever. It waits.

Article 15 § 2: "Once the Committee decides to prosecute and refer the case, it appoints a cleric to act as the ecclesiastical prosecutor to present the case before the competent ecclesiastical judicial body and instructs him to prepare the indictment. If the accused is a hierarch, the ecclesiastical prosecutor must also be a hierarch and, if possible, outrank the accused in seniority."

Article 15 § 3: "If the Investigative Committee determines that there are insufficient grounds to prosecute and refer the case, it archives the investigation materials."

Article 16: "The ecclesiastical prosecutor prepares the indictment based on the investigation materials and the Investigative Committee’s decision, following the rules for preparing indictments described in the next article."

Article 17 §§ 1–10: This article (the most extensive in the Charter regarding the administration of justice) details the form and content requirements for drafting an indictment.

Article 19: "After preparing the indictment, the ecclesiastical prosecutor registers it with the secretariat of the competent ecclesiastical court and then sends the accused copies of the witness testimonies, the indictment, and a summons to appear at a specific date and time before the ecclesiastical court."

Article 21 § 4: "If, at any stage of the proceedings, the court finds the indictment to be defective in form or substance, it may issue a ruling requiring amendment of the indictment..." In such cases, the trial is postponed by court order (Article 22 § 3).

If the five-member Investigative Committee finds insufficient grounds to prosecute, the complaint is archived with no involvement from the Holy Synod. If the committee decides to prosecute, it appoints another hierarch as the ecclesiastical prosecutor, who prepares an indictment according to the Charter's requirements, based on the investigation materials and the committee’s decision.

After preparing the indictment, the ecclesiastical prosecutor submits it to the Synod secretariat (since the accused is a hierarch), forwards the full dossier including the indictment and witness testimonies to the accused, and issues a summons to appear at a specific date and time before the Holy Synod, which now acts as the competent court (because the accused is a hierarch, per Article 79D§2), for trial based on the specific indictment. The Charter requires that the indictment used in trying a hierarch be flawless. Any defect “in form or substance” must be corrected, which may result in postponement of the proceedings.

Article 26: "Every accused person before any ecclesiastical court has the following rights:... b) To present their arguments before the court and have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare their defense, c) To cross-examine or call for examination the prosecution’s witnesses and demand the presence and examination of defense witnesses... d) To have a defense counsel, chosen by the accused, from among the clergy or lawyers..."

Article 31 §§ 1–10: This article details the procedure for an open judicial hearing, with concise statements from the ecclesiastical prosecutor and the accused supporting or disputing the charges, careful examination of witnesses, presentation of evidence by both parties, and concluding statements.

Article 33 § 2: "...Before sentencing, the ecclesiastical prosecutor and the accused may make statements regarding the penalty. Additionally, the court president shall ask the accused whether there are any grounds for not imposing a sentence."

Article 40: "The court has the authority to regulate the procedure before it in the manner it deems most appropriate for each case, provided this does not conflict with the provisions of this text."

It should also be noted that:

According to Article 3, "The principal means of proof in ecclesiastical court are: a) Witnesses, b) Documents, c) The confession of the accused, d) Expert opinion, e) On-site inspection."

Article 7 § 2: "...Judicial officers are subject to disqualification if they arouse or have aroused suspicion of bias, i.e., if there are facts that could clearly justify a lack of confidence in their impartial performance of duties."

Article 7 § 3: "The aforementioned judicial officers are obligated to immediately inform the Investigative Committee or court of any known grounds for their disqualification, requesting to be removed."

Article 7 § 4: "The general conduct of the procedure or the manner of questioning witnesses or the accused alone does not justify disqualification. However, it may justify it if combined with other circumstances indicating that the judge is hostile toward the accused."

According to the Charter, the decisive role belongs to the ecclesiastical prosecutor, who must be distinct from the judge or court president (the president of the Holy Synod and the Archbishop in the case of a trial involving a hierarch). The court president cannot serve as the ecclesiastical prosecutor (!)

Finally, the Charter provides for the fundamental elements of a fair trial, which a modern state (and above all, the Church of Christ) is obliged to uphold, if it wishes to respect itself and remain part of a civilized legal order. Among other things, a fair trial requires without exception:

• Adherence to the rule of law.
• Objective and impartial judges who are above suspicion.
• Separation of roles between complainant, investigator, prosecutor, and judge. These roles must never be held by the same person (!)
• Procedural guarantees with clearly defined legal boundaries for the functioning of judicial bodies during both the preliminary investigation and the trial.
• Sufficient time and all lawful opportunities for the accused to prepare their defense. The ability to examine both prosecution and defense witnesses.
• The presence of legal or clerical defense counsel.

So, what does the Synodal session of May 22, 2025, have to do with the provisions of the Charter?

Note: Before addressing this point, I want to clearly state that I have made special efforts to verify what I am saying in this section through personal communication with prominent figures of the Church of Cyprus [before God I categorically affirm that, apart from one message of support from me, I had no communication with His Eminence Tychikos prior to publishing this text]. Nonetheless, since I do not have access to all the procedural data, if at any point I have been unfair to any persons or circumstances, I ask to be corrected, and I am ready to retract my statements.

I believe that the most competent to answer the question of what relation the Synodal meeting of May 22, 2025, has to the provisions of the Charter are the Synodal hierarchs themselves, especially the ten bishops who condemned the Metropolitan of Paphos.

In any case, judging by the statements of the Archbishop of Cyprus, who frequently appears on television, there is no indication that any provisions of the Charter were followed either in the preliminary proceedings or in the trial procedure. More precisely, there is no indication that any preliminary procedure was conducted at all.

For many months, certain circles within the Archdiocese have been fomenting a militant atmosphere against the Metropolitan of Paphos, the core of which has been his refusal to participate in potential events surrounding the transfer of the head of the Apostle Paul from Rome to Cyprus. As Metropolitan Tychikos himself stated at the time, for reasons of conscience he did not wish to be present, and especially not to pray with papal representatives (cardinals), thereby violating the sacred canons and scandalizing the faithful of his eparchy. Of course, he did not forbid anyone to be present or to receive the holy head in Paphos. But he himself did not wish to participate. This stance by the Metropolitan of Paphos enraged the Archbishop, who then expressed himself in extraordinarily harsh terms against his brother bishop. It was obvious that the Archbishop had taken the matter very personally and tolerated not the slightest dissent.

He even publicly threatened to amend the Charter regarding the locum tenens of the archiepiscopal throne.

Despite the silence and infrequent statements of the Metropolitan of Paphos – always in a low tone, with humility and respect toward the Archbishop – the issue continued to be inflamed by certain journalistic circles, which, evidently in an organized manner, created and maintained a tension inexplicable to the public. The developments of the day before yesterday, and yesterday’s selective publication of elements from the case against the Metropolitan of Paphos, clearly show whom this served.

It is evident that the refusal of the Metropolitan of Paphos to recognize and pray with cardinals as canonical bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church of Christ is the decisive factor that led to his deposition.

Of course, this could not be stated as the rationale for the condemning decision. So, other ecclesiastical “crimes” were found.

From His Beatitude’s statements in numerous interviews to various TV channels, the following is made clear:

There were some complaints against the Metropolitan of Paphos. These complaints concerned: refusal to bless mixed marriages between Orthodox and non-Orthodox; non-recognition of the baptism of heretics; the proposal to (re)baptize those coming into Orthodoxy from Protestant backgrounds; and some vague complaints from the Greek Minister of Education, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Church of Greece, Greek metropolises, the Archdiocese of America, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, embassies, and so on. No, the Vatican did not protest. Nor did the Dalai Lama.

According to the Archbishop, during Synod meetings (in September 2024 and February 2025), some instructions were given to Metropolitan Tychikos, and he promised to comply. But he did not comply.

Thus, the Archbishop himself drafted a 38-page document including all complaints he had received since September 2024. He himself characterized his text as “testimony.” He convened the hierarchy of Cyprus for an extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod, not of a court. At the meeting, he read the lengthy (38-page) “testimony” he had composed, which was seen and heard for the first time both by the other hierarchs and by Metropolitan Tychikos. He demanded explanations from Metropolitan Tychikos, which were given. Then he asked Tychikos to leave the room, the hierarchs deliberated, and the trial concluded with a condemning decision: the final deposition from the throne of the Apostolic Metropolis of Paphos (!!!)

The official communiqué states that the Synod “convened as a court.” Duration of the trial: less than four hours. Even a church janitor would not be dismissed with such a procedure.

To the glory of the synodal system, fair trial, and rule of law…

Of His Beatitude’s many television appearances, one of particular interest is his statement during the “Information Now” program on OMEGATV on May 23, 2025, in which he reveals the most critical procedural moment before the Synod:

“His Beatitude: And to compile that many-paged testimony, to gather all those cases – this is all that has been accumulating since September.

Journalist: Did you give him the opportunity, Your Beatitude, to respond to that lengthy testimony in writing or to offer you a personal response?

His Beatitude: No... yes... of course... he received it in writing yesterday...

Journalist: Not yesterday – before that...

His Beatitude: I read it yesterday, it was before him, and I read it. And he was offered the chance to comment on those three categories, which he already knew. We didn’t want to formulate them in writing, they were oral.”

Just like that.

What became of the Charter’s provisions on preliminary proceedings and open trial?

Thus, several questions arise, to which I believe competent persons must give answers to the people of God:

• If there have been complaints against Bishop Tychikos since September 2024, why were these complaints not referred by order of the Synod to the five-member Investigative Committee of hierarchs and presbyters, as provided by the Charter?
• Is there a decision of the Investigative Committee establishing sufficient grounds that His Grace Tychikos committed an ecclesiastical offense, as required by the Charter?
• Why was no investigator appointed to conduct the proper investigation in order to confirm or refute the complaints, as the Charter requires?
• Why is there no investigator’s report, as the Charter requires?
• Why was no prosecution initiated by the Investigative Committee in accordance with the Charter?
• Why was no “ecclesiastical prosecutor” appointed by the Investigative Committee, as stipulated by the Charter?
• What was the indictment?
• Does an indictment even exist? If it does, who drafted it?
• On the basis of what investigative materials and what decision of the Investigative Committee was it compiled?
• Who were questioned as prosecution witnesses, and who were proposed by the accused?
• Was an indictment submitted by the ecclesiastical prosecutor to the secretariat of the Holy Synod, as provided for by the Charter?
• When was the indictment and the witness statements sent to the accused?
• Was a summons issued by the ecclesiastical prosecutor to Metropolitan Tychikos to appear before the ecclesiastical court?
• Did the accused have a defense counsel, as required by the Charter?
• Who was the ecclesiastical prosecutor during the open proceedings before the court-Synod?
• What was the content of the speech and the position of the ecclesiastical prosecutor regarding guilt at the penultimate stage of the trial?
• What was the prosecutor’s recommendation regarding punishment during the trial?
• Do the Archbishop’s impassioned statements over the past months against Metropolitan Tychikos not arouse “suspicions of bias” that “justify a lack of confidence in his impartial fulfillment of judicial duties” as judge and president of the court?
• The Archbishop stated that he read the 38-page “testimony” with complaints at the Synod and invited Tychikos to respond. Is this procedure considered to provide “adequate time and opportunity to prepare a defense,” as expressly required by the Charter and by all provisions of Cypriot criminal law and the ECHR regarding a fair trial?
• If in the case of Metropolitan Tychikos there was no Investigative Committee, no investigator, no investigation, no report, no prosecutor, no decision to prosecute, no indictment, no witnesses for the prosecution or defense, no summons, no proposal of guilt or punishment by a prosecutor – can we speak of a fair trial, or of a parody of justice that insults not only those involved but the entire Church that endures it?
• Can we speak of a final decision by which the Metropolitan of Paphos was deposed?
• Is there a decision, and of what “court,” from May 22, 2025?
• In the end, what does it mean that the Holy Synod “convened as a court”?

The purpose of this article is not to respond to the substance of the Synod’s decision.

a) I cannot, however, avoid commenting on Complaint B of the official “Communiqué of the Extraordinary Session of the Holy Synod” regarding Metropolitan Tychikos’s alleged systematic refusal to perform mixed marriages or to administer the sacrament of chrismation:

According to absolutely reliable information, in the Holy Metropolis of Paphos in 2023, 19 permissions were granted; in 2024, 15 permissions; and in 2025 (as of May 22), 4 permissions.

Moreover, in 2025, two marriages were performed in which one party had been received into the Orthodox Church (outside Cyprus) through the sacrament of chrismation. And yet, the Metropolitan was condemned, as the official communiqué states, for not performing mixed marriages and for not recognizing chrismation!

Clearly, Metropolitan Tychikos applies the canonical principle of economia both in the sacrament of marriage and in the reception of non-Orthodox, without turning economia into a rule, which would contradict the spirit of true ecclesiastical economia.

b) It is also being demanded of the Metropolitan of Paphos to “submit in writing a confession of faith, which must include a condemnation of schism.” Lord, have mercy! Is it possible that the Synod is now requiring a Metropolitan, who at his ordination vowed to uphold the sacred canons and ecclesiastical tradition, to submit a confession of faith that renounces the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council under St. Photius and the practice of our Church Fathers (e.g., St. Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, St. Paisios the Athonite)?

Conclusion

It is absolutely clear that the Synodal decision of May 22, 2025, by which Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos was deposed, will enter the ecclesiastical history of Cyprus as a paradigmatic example of synodal arbitrariness and disregard for the canonical order of the Apostolic Church of Cyprus.

Its possible enforcement would establish a dangerous precedent, paving the way for similar actions against other hierarchs who are not the “obedient children” (as termed by the Archbishop of Cyprus) of a prevailing synodal majority influenced by external and non-ecclesiastical forces, including those abroad.

Through the decision of May 22, 2025, it was not Metropolitan Tychikos who was truly judged and condemned, but rather, in his person, the very ecclesiastical order itself was condemned.