The “appeal” of Metropolitan Tychikos and the Patriarchal Synod
The Synod of the Church of Constantinople is going to review the high-profile appeal of Metropolitan Tychikos, who was removed from the Paphos See by the Cypriot Synod. What decision will the Synod members of Constantinople make?
On August 29, 2025, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it had reviewed the "appeal" (ἔκκλητον) Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos and invited him to personally appear at the next session of the Synod, scheduled for October 17. In this regard, many Orthodox Christians wonder what this invitation means and whether it indicates which way the Patriarchal Synod is leaning.
Of course, it is impossible to answer this question unequivocally. But it is worth trying to understand what scenarios await Metropolitan Tikhikos and the Church of Cyprus. And what does the invitation of Metropolitan Tychikos to the Phanar mean in general?
The "appeal" procedure and demonstration of impartiality
The situation with the Metropolitan of Paphos is based on a fundamental point: the Ecumenical Patriarchate is trying to establish itself as the highest judicial authority in the Orthodox Church. It bases this claim on Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. However, many Local Churches reject this right of the Ecumenical Patriarch, considering it limited to his own jurisdiction and not extending over other Local Churches.
The disagreement of these Local Churches with Constantinople intensified after a series of controversial decisions by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which provoked crises – from intra-church (the case of Patriarch Irenaios in Jerusalem) to pan-Orthodox (the rehabilitation of Filaret Denysenko and the recognition of Makariy Maletych as "metropolitan", despite lacking canonical ordination). Such decisions inevitably raise questions among Orthodox Christians about the impartiality of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Does it follow church canons and the interests of the Church, or political, historical, and personal considerations? In this case, the decision on the "Metropolitan Tychikos case" may become, in a sense, not only a confirmation of the rights and privileges of the Constantinople Patriarchate but also the proof of its impartiality – the ability to make decisions not based on personal sympathies, connections, and worldly interests but solely based on the Sacred Canons and the Church’s Tradition.
To better understand this point, let us recall why the reaction of most Orthodox Churches to the lifting of the anathema from Filaret Denysenko was so sharp and dealt a blow to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This blow is indirectly acknowledged by Patriarch Bartholomew himself, who asserts that the Ecumenical Patriarchate "received nothing but suffering" from granting the Tomos of autocephaly to Ukraine.
The "Filaret case"
On August 26, 1992, after the deposition of Metropolitan Filaret of Kyiv by the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew sent a letter to Patriarch Alexy of Moscow (No. 1203):
"In response to the corresponding telegram and letter of Your greatly beloved and honorable Beatitude on the problem that has arisen in Your Holy Russian sister Church that led her Holy Synod, for reasons known to her, to the deposition of the until-recently leading member of her Synod, Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev, we desire to fraternally inform Your love, that our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church’s exclusive competence on this issue, synodally accepts the decisions regarding the one in question, not desiring to bring any trouble to Your Church. It is precisely in this spirit that we sent two brothers, His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon and His Grace Bishop Vsevolod of Skopelos, after a visit to us by the one in question who has been deprived of his office, that we could be directly notified firsthand of what had occurred and avoid a misinterpretation in the given case."
On April 7, 1997, after Filaret had already been anathematized by the Russian Church, Patriarch Bartholomew sent a second letter to Patriarch Alexy (No. 282):
“With the appropriate attention, in the meeting of the Holy Synod which sits with us, we read the letter of March 6th of this year (protocol n. 749), from Your most beloved Beatitude, communicating to our most Holy Church the canonical decision of your Holy Synod imposing the sanction of anathema on Filaret (Mikhail Denisenko) and Gleb Yakunin, and the dismissal from the priestly order and reduction to the secular state of Valentin Rusantsov, Adrian Starina, and Ioasaf Shibaev.
Having received the notice about this decision, we have informed the hierarchy of our Ecumenical See about it and asked them henceforth to have no church communion with the aforementioned persons.”
Let us recall that the Holy Synod of the ROC deposed Filaret (Denysenko) on June 11, 1992. The deposed Filaret resorted to an appeal procedure, for which he immediately personally visited Phanar. In response to the appeal, Patriarch Bartholomew sent to Moscow his representatives – His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon and His Grace Bishop Vsevolod of Skopelos, a Ukrainian by birth, so that they, as the letter to Patriarch Alexy says, “could be directly notified firsthand of what had occurred and avoid a misinterpretation in the given case”.
The decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch regarding Filaret's appeal was negative, with a clear statement:
The Phanar’s decision on the appeal of Filaret was negative, with a clear statement that “our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church’s exclusive competence on this issue, synodally accepts the decisions regarding the one in question, not desiring to bring any trouble to Your Church” (Letter dated 1992).
Then, 33 years ago, the Patriarchate of Constantinople reacted to the deposition of Filaret with due seriousness, corresponding to the significance of the issue, and with lightning speed, in order to prevent delays detrimental to all parties, and, most importantly, with absolute consistency with respect to its centuries-old traditions, recognized the deposition.
Moreover, 76 days later (11.06.1992: deposition – 26.08.1992: patriarchal and Synodal decision to reject the appeal and recognize the deposition), the Phanar from the canonical point of view “closed the case” of Filaret.
That is, for a quarter of a century, Patriarch Bartholomew considered the members of the Kyiv Patriarchate (Filaret's group) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Makariy's group) deposed, excommunicated, and schismatics. But unfortunately, in 2018, he suddenly recognized them as bishops.
Moreover, just two years earlier, in 2016, the Patriarch called Metropolitan Onuphry the only canonical Primate of the Church in Ukraine, and already in 2018, he began to call Epifaniy Dumenko by the same title.
Of course, such a change of position raised a number of questions, the main one being motivational. Numerous accusations were made against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, some of which were clearly offensive in nature, and a number of Orthodox Churches now question its impartiality.
Therefore, we are convinced that the "Metropolitan Tychikos case", which many Local Churches (not only in Cyprus and Greece) are closely watching, will be of great importance. It can significantly improve the situation by showing that the Patriarchate of Constantinople can act as an arbiter and independent judge in global Orthodoxy, guided solely by church criteria, beyond "worldly calculations".
The invitation of Metropolitan Tychikos to the Phanar
Archbishop Georgios of Cyprus has repeatedly – publicly and in private conversations – stated that the "Tychikos case" is already closed and that his removal will be confirmed by the Patriarchal Synod in October, as, in his opinion, the Patriarchate cannot go against the Church of Cyprus, which has helped and supported it so much. The Archbishop believes that the invitation of Metropolitan Tychikos to the meeting of the Patriarchal Synod is purely formal, "for show", as he puts it, that is, merely a demonstrative procedure.
However, let's try to consider if this is the case?
Firstly, the personal invitation of Metropolitan Tychikos and his presence at the Holy Patriarchal Synod cannot be "formal". On the contrary, it should be seen as a necessary and logical step aimed at hearing the accused party, clarifying the facts, documenting the position, and providing an opportunity for Synod members to ask questions. Thus, the trip of Metropolitan Tychikos to Constantinople may be viewed not as a “retrial” of the case but rather as the final stage of the appeal procedure, which includes an element of a face-to-face discussion and clarification of circumstances.
Secondly, the invitation itself is a sign of the special importance of the case. This means that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and understands that the attitude of other Churches (not only the Russian one) towards it largely depends on the outcome of this matter.
If the Patriarchate confirms the procedure applied by the Church of Cyprus in condemning Metropolitan Tychikos – a procedure fairly criticized for violating the Statute and the Sacred Canons – it will, on the one hand, provide new grounds for criticism and attacks, and on the other hand, strengthen the arguments of those who question its right and ability to be an impartial arbiter through the institution of appeal (ekklēton, ἔκκλητον).
Thirdly, there is an additional reason for the invitation. After the decision of the Synod of the Church of Cyprus on May 22 and the submission of the appeal on June 5, a public dispute arose over whether the appeal suspends the effect of the contested decision. The office of the Church of Cyprus stated that it does not, since it is about a suspension from administrative duties rather than defrocking. However, Metropolitan Tychikos’s side and some theologians, referring to the Sacred Canons and the Church’s Statute, argue that until the Patriarchate makes a final decision, Tychikos remains the canonical bishop of Paphos. Therefore, the invitation to the Phanar is a way to gather legal and factual arguments and to make a decision that will remove the ambiguity of the situation and serve as a precedent (nomologia, νομολογία) for similar future cases.
Fourthly, it can be assumed that the Patriarchate seeks to resolve this matter as delicately as possible, without harming the authority of either Cyprus or the Phanar itself. In this context, the invitation can be seen as an attempt to ease tensions and find a solution through dialogue rather than dry official correspondence.
Fifthly, the Patriarchal invitation cannot be a mere formality. Such a step would only complicate the matter and, moreover, would make the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself part of the problem, whereas it is expected to render a just and ecclesial decision that can serve the good of the entire Church.
Why is there no decision if “everyone agrees that Tychikos is right”?
Those involved in the case of Metropolitan Tychikos’s removal admit that he was unjustly declared suspended from the See of Paphos through a completely uncanonical and anti-statute (αντικαταστατική) procedure. The violations of the Statute of Cyprus by the Holy Synod in the case of the Metropolitan of Paphos are absolutely obvious and indisputable. Even some staff members of the Archbishopric of Cyprus and certain among the ten hierarchs who condemned him privately either openly acknowledge this or remain “understandingly” silent.
Therefore, the question asked by a significant part of the entire global Orthodox Church is: “Why is there no decision if it is obvious to everyone that Tychikos is right?”
a) We believe that the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by inviting Metropolitan Tychikos, wants to emphasize that the Synod does not have the right to judge superficially, based on what seems “obvious”, but must fully and comprehensively examine the case. Otherwise, the Church of Cyprus may refuse to recognize Constantinople’s decision, and the conflict will escalate.
b) The Patriarchate of Constantinople fully understands that the decision on the “Metropolitan Tychikos case” will have a serious impact on its (the Patriarchate’s) right to appeal (ekklēton, ἔκκλητον).
If within the community of Local Churches closely following the case, there arises the impression that the Patriarchate, for reasons of expediency (to avoid confrontation with the explosive Archbishop Georgios of Cyprus or to retain his support in inter-Orthodox relations), will confirm an unconstitutional decision and issue an unjust ruling against one of the hierarchs, this will demonstrate the futility of appeals by other bishops, priests, and laity who have suffered from illegal and uncanonical actions by their church leadership. Essentially, this will devalue and effectively nullify the “right to appeal”. Along with it, the Patriarchate will lose a significant part of its authority.
c) Finally, by inviting Metropolitan Tychikos to Constantinople, the Patriarchate aims not only to "close the case" but also to attempt to create conditions for reconciliation between the two parties for their future "peaceful coexistence" if some compromise can be reached. In other words, the case should be resolved not only legally but also practically.
From the above, it can be concluded that the personal summons is connected with the desire to hear Metropolitan Tychikos, ask him questions regarding the text of the "Confession of Faith" he composed, about the administrative aspects, public statements, and perhaps most importantly, to ascertain his readiness for a "reconciliation formula".
Possible decisions of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Of course, predicting the possible decision is a mug's game. Nevertheless, we can try to understand the possible options.
In our opinion, the most just and acceptable option for the ecclesiastical conscience of Cyprus and Greece is the full rehabilitation of Metropolitan Tychikos and his unconditional restoration as the canonical bishop of the Paphos Diocese.
Based on the Sacred Canons, such a decision is possible (and would, in fact, be the most correct), but politically it would significantly affect relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Cyprus. The question around which the reflections at the Phanar revolve is whether the Patriarchate is capable of handling Archbishop Georgios’s explosive nature and his subsequent position. The Archbishop has already stated that if Tychikos is acquitted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus will distance itself from the patriarchal line on the “Ukrainian issue”. Can the Phanar withstand such a stance at the present moment?
On the other hand, acquitting and restoring Tychikos would demonstrate that the Patriarchate of Constantinople can be an indisputable representative and servant of ecclesiastical justice, administering justice while standing above worldly interests and “underground” agreements. In this case, through the institution of appeal (ekklēton, ἔκκλητον), the Ecumenical Patriarch would strengthen his position in world Orthodoxy as a reliable and just arbiter in serious ecclesiastical matters.
The second possible option is a partial satisfaction of the appeal combined with the “reconciliation formula”.
In other words, the Synod of Cyprus would be required to remove the formulations that call into question Metropolitan Tychikos’s canonical status, confirm that there are no grounds for depriving him of the Paphos See, and point out procedural errors in the Synod’s decision. At the same time, it would propose a peaceful settlement under which Metropolitan Tychikos would issue a public clarification regarding some of his statements.
Furthermore, as part of a compromise, the Patriarchate of Constantinople might propose that the Synod of the Church of Cyprus either reinstate Tychikos as Metropolitan of Paphos or introduce a temporary form of governance over the diocese. For example, he could begin to fulfill his duties under some form of “synodal supervision”. Such a decision would allow the Patriarchate to demonstrate that Tychikos is right, while simultaneously showing respect to the Church of Cyprus.
The third scenario is the referral of Metropolitan Tychikos’s case back for reconsideration by the Synod of Cyprus.
In this case, instructions may be given demanding full compliance with the provisions of the Statute. Many consider this option the most likely, as it, on the one hand, removes direct responsibility from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and on the other hand, aligns with the classic practice of appeal: to acknowledge certain procedural violations and return the case for revision with recommendations for correction.
If this happens, Metropolitan Tychikos could be officially acquitted, and the Cypriot Synod would have the opportunity to save face.
However, this option faces two serious obstacles:
a) the possible reaction of Archbishop Georgios,
b) the impossibility of involving the current hierarchs of the Church of Cyprus in the new process, since they have already participated in the May 22 meeting.
In this case, it will be necessary to invite at least 12 bishops from other Churches, as has happened before in cases concerning the Church of Cyprus.
As for the Archbishop’s reaction, he must realize that the responsibility for the current crisis in the Church of Cyprus lies with him and his decisions, and that it is his duty to heal it, according to the ancient principle: “the one who wounded, let him heal” (ὁ τρώσας καὶ ἰάσεται).
The fourth scenario is the confirmation of the decision of the Church of Cyprus.
Theoretically, such a decision is possible if the Synod considers the grounds for it sufficient. However, in our view, this contradicts:
a) the very fact of the personal invitation of Metropolitan Tychikos,
b) the prolonged pause and postponement of the announcement of the decision.
Initially, the decision was expected by the end of August, but then it became known that it would be in mid-October, which supports Metropolitan Tychikos’s position.
It seems to us that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is seeking a path to compromise rather than simply intending to confirm the decision of the Church of Cyprus.
Moreover, confirming such an obviously controversial and legally questionable decision would provoke serious reactions and call into question the authority of the Ecumenical Throne not only from other Orthodox Churches but also from the faithful people of Cyprus, who largely recognize Metropolitan Tychikos’s rightness, as evidenced by public opinion polls.
We believe that Patriarch Bartholomew is fully aware of the seriousness of this matter and will not wish to contradict the ecclesiastical conscience, risking undermining the authority of the Throne and his own personal authority.
What else is Constantinople signaling?
In our view, by inviting Metropolitan Tychikos to the meeting of its Synod, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is sending another message to the Archdiocese of Cyprus: “We will not turn a blind eye to the situation you have created, but we will also not publicly humiliate you.”
In this sense, the invitation of the hierarch to Constantinople is an attempt to encourage the Church of Cyprus toward a dialogue of reconciliation. The question is, how ready is the Archdiocese of Nicosia for such a dialogue?
On the other hand, it is also a signal to the faithful and the media: the decision will be made after a personal hearing, that is, through a just and open process, rather than as a result of “behind-the-scenes agreements”.
And finally, it is a message to Metropolitan Tychikos himself: “We are ready to acknowledge that, in essence, you are right – if you help us formulate this acknowledgment in a way that allows everyone to save face.”
In other words, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is hinting that Metropolitan Tychikos will be invited to accept the “reconciliation formula” intended to satisfy (or equally disappoint) all parties.
Most likely, behind-the-scenes preparations of such a formula are underway now, along with unofficial consultations with Archbishop Georgios.
Therefore, the summons of Metropolitan Tychikos to the Phanar should not be viewed as something overtly negative, let alone merely formal. It is most likely a procedural step preceding a politico-canonical decision.
We hope that Constantinople seeks to confirm the rightness of Metropolitan Tychikos on the merits but will frame it in a way that preserves good relations with the Archdiocese of Cyprus.
The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the Patriarchate of Constantinople faces a difficult task: either to cut the Gordian knot in the case of the Metropolitan of Paphos or to attempt to carefully untangle it.
