Why Patriarch Bartholomew cannot afford to lose the case of Tychikos
If the Patriarch upholds Tychikos’ appeal, he stands to gain on multiple fronts.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has unexpectedly found himself in a highly advantageous position – thanks to the conflict surrounding Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, who was deposed by the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus in May 2025. What initially appeared to be a localized ecclesiastical dispute could prove to be a turning point, significantly strengthening Constantinople’s position in the broader Orthodox world.
How it all began
The crisis was sparked by Metropolitan Tychikos’s refusal to receive a Roman Catholic delegation in his eparchy. The delegation intended to tour Cyprus with a relic believed to be the head of the Apostle Paul. This initiative had been arranged by the late Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus in cooperation with the late Pope Francis. The current head of the Church of Cyprus, Archbishop Georgios, fully supported the project – thus Metropolitan Tychikos’s opposition provoked his fury.
In addition, Metropolitan Tychikos was accused of a range of other “violations,” including: refusing to perform interconfessional weddings between Orthodox and Catholics or Protestants; consecrating a church in honor of a holy man not officially glorified; and ordaining a priest who, while still a layman, had broken ties with a Greek bishop. These charges, however, appear thin and unconvincing. Some directly contradict the facts – for example, there is video evidence of Tychikos stating that one should not write icons or consecrate churches in honor of uncanonized ascetics. As a result, the Synod bolstered the charges with “external witness statements.”
Archbishop Georgios noted that the Ecumenical Patriarch was aware of the situation and had expressed his “serious concern” in a personal letter. An excerpt from the letter reads:
“We were surprised and deeply saddened to learn that a hierarch of Your Beatitude’s Most Holy Church, namely His Eminence Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, in the context of his conservative and entirely outdated views on Church affairs, has made disrespectful and inappropriate remarks even against our Most Holy Ecumenical See. For this reason, we express here our dissatisfaction and disapproval.
Your Beatitude, being persuaded – as we are here at the Phanar – that the traditional relations of our fraternal Churches must continue as they always have, for the common good (which You and the holy brethren around You certainly desire), we ask You to call the Metropolitan of Paphos to order and to prevent him from disrupting the exemplary relations between the ancient Churches of Constantinople and Cyprus.”
The Greek expression used – “ἀνακαλέσητε εἰς τὴν τάξιν” – is best translated as “to restore to order” or “to bring back into discipline.” It carries no inherently punitive meaning and is often used in ecclesiastical and legal contexts to suggest guidance rather than removal.
This nuance was highlighted by Greek missionary and theologian Fr. Evangelos Papanikolaou, who noted that the Patriarch never asked for Tychikos to be deposed. Rather, he said, the Patriarch’s phrasing meant: “Tell him what needs to be done.” He did not say: “Remove him from his post.” Cypriot media report that it was Fr. Evangelos who advised Metropolitan Tychikos to file an appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The appeal as a turning point
On June 5, 2025, Metropolitan Tychikos did exactly that – he submitted a formal appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew. This step caught many by surprise. The ultimate decision in the case now lies in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch himself.
The act of filing an appeal is, in itself, deeply significant. In doing so, Metropolitan Tychikos has reminded the entire Orthodox world of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s right of final arbitration in inter-Orthodox disputes – a prerogative that, until now, was often treated as theoretical or symbolic. This case moves it into the realm of active precedent. The appeal could become a milestone, capable of reshaping ecclesiastical power dynamics within global Orthodoxy.
In many ways, Patriarch Bartholomew now finds himself in a rare and advantageous position: where canonical legitimacy and strategic benefit converge.
Demonstrating practical authority
By reviewing and potentially overturning the decision of the Cypriot Synod, the Patriarch has a chance to demonstrate, in practical terms, the relevance and effectiveness of Constantinople’s canonical privileges.
These privileges are frequently disputed in the Orthodox world. The Moscow Patriarchate, for instance, flatly denies that Constantinople holds such authority. Other Local Churches treat the claim with skepticism. But the Tychikos case could change that.
When a hierarch voluntarily appeals to Constantinople, he implicitly acknowledges the Ecumenical Patriarch’s authority as a pan-Orthodox arbiter. If Patriarch Bartholomew handles the appeal with fairness and impartiality, it could establish a model for future cases. Local Churches may then seek his judgment not merely out of protocol, but in the pursuit of justice.
Affirming the role of the “Ecumenical” Patriarch
Another critical implication is the opportunity to validate the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” not merely as a ceremonial honorific, but as a substantive role.
The title itself has faced criticism from some quarters, with detractors calling it outdated or inflated – especially given the resistance of many Orthodox Churches to Constantinople’s leadership. But a fair and constructive resolution of the Tychikos case would lend weight to the title, demonstrating that the Ecumenical Patriarch is, in fact, fulfilling the role of “first among equals” – a reconciler and defender of canonical order across the Orthodox world.
Canonical integrity
Metropolitan Tychikos was deposed for upholding traditional Orthodox doctrine – especially his rejection of Catholic practices. This puts Patriarch Bartholomew, often criticized for liberal tendencies and ecumenical overtures, in a delicate but potentially advantageous position.
If he sides with Tychikos, the Patriarch will disarm critics who claim he is willing to compromise Orthodox principles in pursuit of closer ties with Rome. Defending a hierarch disciplined for upholding canonical Orthodoxy would be a powerful counter-argument.
A question of justice
The case of Metropolitan Tychikos raises a fundamental question: should an Orthodox bishop be punished for expressing views rooted in the Church’s traditional teachings? From a canonical perspective, not only does a bishop have the right to defend Orthodoxy – he has a duty to do so.
Even if his words were sharp in tone, that does not mean they were doctrinally incorrect. His critique of papal claims aligns with historic Orthodox theology. If Patriarch Bartholomew protects the Paphos hierarch, it will show that his actions are guided not by political considerations, but by fidelity to the canons and the Orthodox faith. Such a decision would greatly enhance his moral authority.
The problem of trust
One of the chief issues currently facing Patriarch Bartholomew is a lack of trust among many Orthodox Christians. He is widely seen – particularly in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis – as too beholden to Western political interests and too eager to accommodate non-Orthodox confessions.
The recognition of the schismatic OCU, dialogue with the Vatican, and various ecumenical gestures have led some to question whether Constantinople is serving the interests of global Orthodoxy or external powers.
In this context, defending Metropolitan Tychikos could be a game changer. It would be difficult to accuse the Ecumenical Patriarch of pro-Catholic bias if he reinstates a hierarch deposed precisely for criticizing the Pope. Such a move would serve as strong evidence of his commitment to Orthodox principles.
Restoring unity
The Orthodox world today is deeply fractured. Conflicts and mutual suspicions abound. What is needed is not merely a symbolic leader, but a unifying figure capable of rising above partisan divisions and guiding the Church through turbulent times.
Patriarch Bartholomew now has an opportunity to become that figure – not just in name, but in action. A just and impartial resolution to the Tychikos case could be the first step toward restoring confidence in the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Conclusion
The case of Metropolitan Tychikos is of critical importance for Patriarch Bartholomew. It offers a rare opportunity to dramatically shift the perception of his role in the Orthodox world.
By defending canonical order, exercising his arbitration rights with fairness, and placing ecclesiastical justice above political considerations, Patriarch Bartholomew can silence many critics, reaffirm his pan-Orthodox relevance, and reclaim his moral authority.
The question remains: will he seize this opportunity?
