Appeal to the Phanar: Ensuring justice or encouraging injustice?
The "Tychikos case" makes plain that appeal becomes a farce when the guardian of justice turns into the enforcer of injustice.
Greek theologian and protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos published a large analytical article on the Greek-language UOJ website, devoted to the contemporary reality of the Ecumenical Throne as the pan-Orthodox appellate authority. We present the full text without abridgement.
Historical overview
“Ekkliton,” or an appeal, is the right to petition a higher ecclesiastical court for review (see Law 590/1977, Article 160). Over time, however, the term “ekkliton” became firmly associated with the canonical right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to consider the cases of clergy under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne who believe they were unjustly condemned by ecclesiastical courts.
A historical analysis of the appellate institution shows that it first appears in the canons of the Sardican Council, specifically Canons III and V, convened in Sofia in 343 AD. These canons were adopted with the purpose of protecting St. Athanasius the Great and the bishops aligned with him. Importantly, these hierarchs had been deposed by a number of councils with broad episcopal representation – a fact that demonstrates that even great saints could become the object of conciliar condemnation.
In this situation, the Council entrusted the review of the case to Pope Julius of Rome, who at the time upheld the Orthodox faith. According to the decision, the pope received authority to form an ecclesiastical court to review the case. Notably, this canon granted the pope strictly procedural authority related to organizing the judicial body – not the authority to hear appeals single-handedly.
However, the ruling was limited in duration, as evidenced by its rejection in the Latin Church of North Africa. The local Councils of Carthage (419 AD) repeatedly denied the Roman bishop the right to review their decisions and forbade clergy from appealing “to the ends of the earth” (to Rome).
Later, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, by its 9th and 17th canons, transferred appellate authority to the Throne of Constantinople. Commentaries differ as to the scope of these canons: do they apply to all clergy of the universal Orthodox Church, or only to the clergy subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople?
This question, however, is not the focus of the present study. We personally follow the view of the great canonist of our Church, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, who, summarizing the entire patristic and canonical tradition of earlier Fathers and canonists with irrefutable reasoning, inclines toward the second position: that “the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have authority to act within the eparchies and parishes of other Patriarchs, and this canon [Chalcedon 9] did not grant him the right of appeal for the entire Church” (The Rudder, Papadimitriou edition, 1976, p. 192).
Nevertheless, beyond the sacred canons, the statutes of certain Churches grant the right of appeal to the Ecumenical Throne for clergy not under Constantinople’s jurisdiction. The autocephalous Churches that provide this right to their hierarchs are the Church of Greece (Statute, Law 590/1977, Article 44, §2) and the Church of Cyprus (Statute, Article 81). This possibility, afforded by the statutes of two Churches, does not contradict the sacred canons. Therefore, hierarchs of the Churches of Greece and Cyprus may appeal to the Ecumenical Throne not on the basis of the canons (Chalcedon 9 and 17), but on the basis of Articles 44§2 and 81 of their respective statutes.
It was precisely this right, granted to him by the Church of Cyprus (Statute Article 81), that Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos exercised when he submitted his appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on July 5, 2025. In this appeal, the hierarch contested the decision of the Synod of Cyprus of May 22, 2025, which deposed him.
The Patriarchal Synod, in its ruling of October 17, 2025, partially upheld the appeal, indeed establishing procedural violations – or, as they more delicately phrased it: “Upon reviewing the case, it was established that during the examination of the case of Metropolitan Tychikos in the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, omissions were made with respect to the provisions of its Statute.” Yet, according to the same text, all members of the Patriarchal Synod “unanimously upheld the synodal decision of the Holy Church of Cyprus” – the very decision which they acknowledged had been procedurally flawed!
Thus, the Patriarchal Synod unequivocally recognizes the unlawfulness and injustice of the decision, but simultaneously justifies not the victim of the injustice, but the party that committed it.
Here it is appropriate to recall the decision 1983/1979 of the Council of State of Greece, which confirms the Gospel truth that “the children of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the children of light” (Luke 16:8). The Council, reviewing a petition to annul a synodal act after a decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on an appeal, ruled that:
“The competent ecclesiastical court is obligated to review the case… If upon reviewing the legality of the appealed decision any violation is found, the case must be returned for correction. Ultimately, an act imposing deposition or removal from a metropolitan throne must be annulled if the appeal review establishes any illegality (procedural or substantive). After annulment, the case must be returned to the competent authority for new consideration consistent with the findings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
With these principles in mind, we now turn to earlier Patriarchal decisions on appeals that have profoundly damaged confidence in this institution.
The case of the former metropolitan of the Church of Greece, convicted of a criminal offense
Twenty years ago, the Church of Greece was shaken by a major scandal involving grave accusations of moral, financial, canonical, and criminal misconduct by P. M., former metropolitan of a large metropolis. Since he has reposed and stands before the Righteous Judge, we omit his name.
This former bishop was implicated in serious scandals:
a) more than €1,500,000 was found in his offshore account, which he acknowledged as his own, calling it “for a rainy day, for old age”;
b) he was accused of serious moral offenses incompatible with the priesthood – shameful even to speak of. Recordings of his telephone conversations were published but were not examined because they had been obtained through wiretapping;
c) he was convicted by the Five-Member Criminal Court of Appeals and sentenced to six years in prison for embezzling 56 million drachmas from a monastery. He served part of his sentence, was paroled for health reasons, and was later found drowned after suffering an ischemic episode.
Because of the widespread scandal and grave offense caused to the faithful, the Holy Synod, applying Article 34§8 of the Statute (Law 1351/1983, Article 15), first suspended the metropolitan for six months and then declared his throne vacant – without following the procedure mandated by Law 5383/1932 “On Ecclesiastical Courts.” The deposed metropolitan appealed the synodal decision to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate reviewed the appeal, examined the documents, and – without requiring the appearance of the appellant – issued a synodal decision upholding the appeal as admissible and well-founded because the required procedure (ecclesiastical court) had not been followed. The Patriarchal Synod exonerated the deposed hierarch and required the Church of Greece to hold a canonical trial. Constantinople did not examine the case on its merits at all. In a letter No. 1203/2005, Patriarch Bartholomew wrote:
“In the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the case of Metropolitan […] should be heard by the competent ecclesiastical courts. Therefore, without entering into the substance of the matter at this time, we fraternally call upon you to refer it to the ecclesiastical courts, whose decisions the Mother Church awaits in order to take a final position.”
Later, as mentioned above, the Five-Member Court of Appeals sentenced the metropolitan to six years for criminal embezzlement – a verdict upheld by the Supreme Court’s decision 778/2009. The decision was sent to the Church of Greece, and the court of first instance – the Hierarchical Court – initiated the process of deposition in accordance with Law 5383/1932.
The deposed hierarch submitted a second appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Again, the Patriarchal Synod exonerated him for the same reason, again without examining the case itself. Again the Church of Greece was ordered to “complete the required procedure.” Patriarch Bartholomew wrote in Letter No. 877/2009:
“The Holy Mother Church reverently follows the sacred Canons… and has established that the Second-Instance Hierarchical Synodal Court of your Church has not yet reviewed this case…”
He then added:
“Before considering the appeal on its merits, the procedure mandated by the sacred Canons and existing Law 5383/1932 on ecclesiastical justice must be completed. After that, the Mother Church will examine the matter definitively and irrevocably.”
In essence, the Patriarchal Synod justified the appellant for a second time solely on procedural grounds.
The Church of Greece, obeying the Patriarchal directive, convened the Second-Instance Court, which declared the appeal inadmissible without examining its merits. P. M. then filed a third appeal – and for the third time the Ecumenical Patriarchate upheld it. In Letter No. 258/21.5.2010 the Church of Greece was sternly ordered to hear the case on its merits and return the proceedings to the Patriarchate for final judgment.
Conclusions
1. The Patriarchal Synod three times required the Church of Greece to hold a canonical trial in accordance with the sacred Canons and ecclesiastical law, upholding all three appeals and fully exonerating the former metropolitan.
2. The Patriarchal Synod:
– completely ignored the criminal conviction issued by the Five-Member Court of Appeals;
– ignored the staggering, unthinkable sum of €1,500,000 kept offshore;
– ignored – or rather “failed to hear” – the shameful recordings circulating online;
– and, most seriously, ignored the profound scandal and upheaval inflicted upon the faithful, leaving the case unresolved for more than five years.
3. In none of the three decisions did the Patriarchal Synod advise the former metropolitan to “obey the Synod of his Church for his own spiritual benefit and for the peace and unity of the Church,” as it did in the case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos.
4. Finally – and most regrettably – the Patriarchal Synod refused to hear the case of P. M. on its merits and close this painful chapter, which for more than five years tormented the Church of Greece, its leadership, and its faithful, “for his own spiritual benefit and for the peace and unity of the [Greek] Church.”
The case of the deposed, excommunicated, and unordained Ukrainian schismatics
A particularly striking – and profoundly consequential – moment for pan-Orthodox communion was the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on October 11, 2018, to accept the “appeals” of the schismatics: the former Metropolitan Filaret Denysenko and the unordained Makariy Maletich.
On Filaret Denysenko
The former Metropolitan of Kyiv, Filaret, was deposed by the Russian Church on June 11, 1992 for a series of canonical offenses. Immediately after his deposition, he personally traveled to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, where he submitted an appeal against the decision. Patriarch Bartholomew, in reviewing Filaret’s appeal, sent a delegation to the Russian Church headed by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon “in order to obtain information first-hand about what had occurred and to avoid any misunderstanding in this case.” In the end,
the Patriarchal Synod rejected Filaret’s appeal and confirmed his deposition.
In his Patriarchal Letter (Reg. No. 1203/26.8.1992) to the Patriarch of Moscow, Patriarch Bartholomew emphasized:
“Our Holy Great Church of Christ, fully recognizing… the exclusive competence of your Most Holy Russian Church, accepts the synodally-adopted decisions concerning this person, not wishing to create any difficulties for your brother Church.”
The decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to depose Filaret was accepted by all Orthodox Churches without exception and without reservation.
Filaret, however, refused to accept it and continued to “serve” and to “ordain” pseudo-bishops, thereby strengthening and expanding the schism. For this reason, in 1997 the Moscow Patriarchate formally anathematized him – a sentence which was accepted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Patriarchal Letter Reg. No. 282/7.4.1997) and by the fullness of pan-Orthodox ecclesial communion and consciousness.
On Makariy Maletich
Makariy Maletich was never deposed by the canonical UOC, the Moscow Patriarchate, or any Orthodox Church at all.
The reason is simple: according to the ecclesial consciousness of all Orthodox Churches (up to 2018), he was not a bishop, because he had no canonical ordination.
His “episcopacy” derives from pseudo-bishops who themselves had no apostolic succession, since they were “ordained” by the deposed former bishop, charlatan, and self-styled impostor Viktor Chekalin (for details, see Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Ukrainian Autocephaly: A Contribution to the Dialogue, To Palimpsiston, Thessaloniki, 2019, pp. 119–143).
This means that Makariy Maletich was never tried, never judged, and therefore never sentenced to deposition or removal from office – because he was never a bishop to begin with.
Because Makariy was never judged or condemned, it is obvious that there exists no guilty verdict against him; therefore, an appeal is meaningless, since he cannot submit an appeal to the Ecumenical Throne. According to the canonical tradition, an appeal challenges a specific unjust verdict issued by an ecclesiastical court. As the great commentator Balsamon succinctly put it:
“Every condemned person who considers himself unjustly condemned is granted recourse through appeal.”
Thus, for Makariy Maletich, there exists no subject of appeal, since he was never condemned and therefore has no legal right to appeal.
An appeal submitted by someone who has never been tried or sentenced has no legal force. One cannot appeal a verdict that does not exist.
And yet, the Patriarchal Synod proceeded to review such a “petition” and even issued a ruling. Against all established pan-Orthodox ecclesial consciousness, on October 11, 2018, the Synod, by formal Act, accepted the “requests” for appeal from the deposed and excommunicated Filaret Denysenko and the unordained Makariy Maletich “and those with them,” and “restored them to their episcopal or priestly rank.”
Critical questions
- What exactly was contained in the appeals submitted in October 2018 by Filaret, by Makariy, and by “those with them”? Why were these appeals never made public?
- Did Filaret not already submit an appeal 33 years ago, in June 1992, which was reviewed and rejected by the Patriarchal Synod on August 26, 1992?
- Is there even a provision for appealing a decision of the Patriarchal Synod?
- On what decision did Makariy base an appeal, if he had never been condemned? Is an appeal possible in the absence of a judgment? What, then, is being appealed?
- Who are the individuals that appealed “together with Makariy Maletich”? What decisions are they appealing, if none of them have canonical ordination and therefore have never been judged or condemned?
- Into what “episcopal or priestly rank” were Makariy Maletich and his followers – men without apostolic succession, “ordained” by an unordained impostor – “restored”?
- Is it even possible to “restore” someone to the episcopacy who never possessed it?
- Can a man without canonical ordination and apostolic succession perform ordinations?
Sadly, not a single one of these critical questions has been answered.
In any case
By its decision of October 11, 2018, the Patriarchal Synod accepted the appeals and fully exonerated the deposed, excommunicated, and unordained schismatics – Filaret Denysenko, Makariy Maletich, and their followers. This decision led to catastrophic consequences for pan-Orthodox unity and for the peace of the Ukrainian people.
And once again, the Patriarchal Synod did not advise any of these men to “obey the decisions of the Holy Synod of their own Church for the sake of their spiritual benefit and for the peace and unity of the Church,” as it sternly advised Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos.
The case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos
As is well known, Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos submitted an appeal to the Ecumenical Throne on June 5, 2025, exercising his right under Article 81 of the Statute of the Church of Cyprus. He appealed the decision of the Synod of Cyprus of May 22, 2025, which removed him from the Paphos see. The procedure followed in this case resembled a medieval inquisition, one that insulted both the legal culture of our time and the very dignity of the Orthodox Church.
Metropolitan Tychikos was condemned with the gravest violations of ecclesiastical law. None of the mandatory procedures were observed: no investigative committee was formed, no investigator was appointed, no inquiry was carried out, and none of the accusations were examined. There was no investigator’s report, no ecclesiastical prosecutor, no formal decision to initiate proceedings, and no indictment. No witnesses for the prosecution were called, nor were witnesses for the defense. The accused himself was not properly summoned to the session. The ecclesiastical prosecutor presented neither a recommendation on guilt nor a recommendation on sentencing. In short, not a single article prescribed by the Statute or the sacred canons was followed.
So then, what actually happened?
In essence, Archbishop Georgios of Cyprus personally combined within himself the roles of accuser, investigator, ecclesiastical prosecutor, witness for the prosecution, judge, presiding officer, and spokesman. Using well-known methods, he secured a temporary majority in the Synod and, in violation of all sacred canons, statutory provisions, and the elementary principles of due process, forced through the decision to remove Metropolitan Tychikos from office.
The remaining nine members of the Synod who signed the decision did not examine the presented “testimonies,” did not study the evidence cited by the Archbishop, and did not question a single witness. They deprived the accused of legal counsel, refused him the right to call witnesses in his defense, denied him access to the evidence, and effectively stripped him of any possibility to defend himself.
And yet they issued the verdict lightly: guilty and removed from office!
Everyone knows – even if they hesitate to acknowledge it publicly – that the “trial” of May 22, 2025 was unacceptable not only procedurally but also substantively. Not a single accusation was examined, let alone proven. Indeed, from the moment the decision was issued until today, every accusation has collapsed, revealing its wholly slanderous nature. This is precisely why the proper procedure was not followed – following it would inevitably have revealed the truth.
More specifically:
The first accusation collapsed:
No cooperation with “schismatics” was proven. On the contrary, Metropolitan Tychikos opposed those who misinterpreted the 15th Canon of the First–Second Council.
Related:
The trial of Metropolitan Tychikos: when the Church “washes its hands”
The second accusation collapsed:
The allegation that he refused to perform mixed marriages was not proven. On the contrary, acting with canonical rigor, Metropolitan Tychikos successfully encouraged non-Orthodox spouses to receive Orthodox baptism – he baptized more than 30 adults during his two years as a hierarch. For those unwilling to be baptized, he issued dispensations for mixed marriages by economia – 36 such marriages were performed from 2023–2025. Despite these facts, he was condemned for allegedly forbidding mixed marriages.
The third accusation collapsed:
The claim that he committed a canonical offense by consecrating a small chapel dedicated to two saints (Epiphanius and Nektarios of Pentapolis) and a pious elder was not proven and could not justify such a severe punishment. Moreover, it was revealed that the accuser – Archbishop Georgios himself – had consecrated not a small chapel but a large parish church in honor of a saint three years before that saint’s official canonization. Most shocking: during a TV appearance, the Archbishop lied, denying this fact to avoid uncomfortable questions.
The final accusation collapsed:
No evidence was found whatsoever of “serious deficiencies in the governance and pastoral care of the Metropolis of Paphos.” On the contrary, the liturgical, catechetical, and pastoral work accomplished in just two years under Metropolitan Tychikos was exemplary (see “The Pastoral Work of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, 2023–2025”).
Extremely striking also are the financial results of Tychikos’ administration, according to the official Annual Financial Reports (approved by the Central Financial Service of the Holy Synod of Cyprus):
2020: €820,760 (under Georgios, now Archbishop)
2021: €607,411 — a decrease of €213,349 (under Georgios)
2022: €509,312 — a further decrease of €98,099 (under Georgios)
2023: €1,100,698 — an increase of €591,386 (first year of Tychikos’ episcopacy!)
2024: €2,000,000 (estimated), since Archbishop Georgios, acting as locum tenens, did not publish the figures… Why not? Perhaps to avoid revealing the tremendous success of Tychikos’ administration in 2024?
In Tychikos’ first year (2023) the finances of the Metropolis more than doubled (by more than 116%), while in the previous two years (2021 and 2022 under Georgios) they had decreased by about 16% and 25%.
Should not the locum tenens of the Metropolis, Archbishop Georgios, responsibly explain to the faithful – with concrete data – what is happening with their donations? How are the declines under Georgios to be explained, and how is the explosive growth under Tychikos to be explained? In Greece, if such discrepancies appeared, the financial prosecutor would undoubtedly intervene…
One thing is certain and indisputable: during the tenure of Metropolitan Tychikos (2023–2025), the Metropolis of Paphos experienced extraordinary flourishing both spiritually and financially. It was precisely this flourishing that stirred the envy of the devil and his instruments, who orchestrated the deposition of the Metropolitan.
Review of the appeal by the Patriarchal Synod
And yet this decision – blatantly uncanonical, unconstitutional, unlawful, and unjust, contradicting the legal principles of the civilized world – was upheld by the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople, which is regarded as the “guardian of canonical order” in the Orthodox Church of Christ.
Still more grievous is this: the Patriarchal Synod acknowledged Metropolitan Tychikos’s appeal, establishing and declaring that procedural violations had indeed occurred – and then, contradicting itself, approved the result of the corrupted trial!
Of course, the decision expresses itself in a very… elegant manner, stating that “omissions were identified during the examination of the case of Metropolitan Tychikos in the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus regarding the provisions of its Statute.”
So simple: “omissions were identified”!
Your All-Holiness! Your Eminences!
The trampling of episcopal honor and dignity, the total destruction of the judicial procedure prescribed by the sacred canons, the Statute, secular law, international conventions on the right to a fair trial, and the universal respect for the rights of the accused – rooted in the Old Testament and secured by the entire history of legal culture – in short, the fact that the Synod of Cyprus left nothing standing, is treated by the Patriarchal Synod as mere “omissions” that can be casually brushed aside?
It is difficult even to comment on the following sentence of the Patriarchal and Synodal decision of October 17, 2025, regarding the appeal of Metropolitan Tychikos:
“Nevertheless, all the members of the Holy and Sacred Synod, judging on the merits, unanimously upheld the synodal decision of the Most Holy Church of Cyprus.”
This raises a question: what does “judging on the merits” mean? Is this now considered a proper ecclesiastical trial? Has the prophetic command – “Execute justice and righteousness, and deliver the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor” – been fulfilled? I dare not answer…
A thorough commentary on this synodal decision would require a full study. But let us reflect: how would we react to the legal system of our country if the procedure used on the Phanar on October 17, 2025 for reviewing an appeal were used by criminal courts for appeals and cassations?
Would this bring honor to our country? Would we accept such a trial for ourselves? Absolutely not!
Then why do we tolerate this in the Church of Christ and remain silent with fatalistic resignation? Why do we consider it natural that secular justice must be more righteous than ecclesiastical justice? Is this not evidence of the decay of our ecclesial life – both personal and collective? Is this not the transformation of the Church from the Body of Christ into a medieval fiefdom ruled by an unaccountable lord?
And unfortunately, the questions only multiply when we compare the Tychikos case with the two other appeal cases examined above.
How is it possible that in two similar matters of appeal, the same body – the same judicial authority – issued completely opposite decisions?
In the cases of the convicted former metropolitan P. M. of the Church of Greece and Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, the subject of appeal was identical: both Churches (Greece and Cyprus) refused to conduct a canonical trial based on the sacred canons and their Statutes. The request of both appellants was likewise identical: “Judge me according to the established procedure!”
In the case of the former metropolitan P. M., the Patriarchal Synod fully granted the appellant’s request: it did not examine the matter on the merits and sent it back to the Church of Greece for a canonical trial, effectively exonerating the former metropolitan. This happened three times – in all three appeals, the former hierarch was vindicated by the Patriarchal Synod.
But in the case of Metropolitan Tychikos, the Patriarchal Synod, after acknowledging the absence of any canonical trial, did not grant his request and did not send the case back to the Church of Cyprus for a proper hearing. Instead, lacking any of the necessary materials (no testimony, no evidence from prosecution or defense), the Synod issued a decision on the merits and upheld the conviction, condemning the metropolitan.
Why does one and the same judicial body issue completely opposite decisions for identical cases? What is the reason?
Perhaps the explanation lies in the personalities of the appellants? One does not want to believe this.
For the exonerated former metropolitan had been sentenced to six years in prison for a criminal offense, held more than €1,500,000 in offshore accounts, and had scandalous recorded conversations circulating publicly. Meanwhile, the condemned Metropolitan Tychikos is a man of modest means, exemplary in financial administration, and – in his personal life – known for strictness and integrity.
Perhaps, then, Patriarchal decisions depend not on the appellants but on the personalities of the presiding hierarchs of the local Synods involved? I cannot know.
However, I must note:
a) In the case of the former metropolitan exonerated by the Patriarchal Synod, the Patriarchate annulled the synodal decision originally issued under Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, causing serious difficulty for the blessed Christodoulos and for the Church of Greece as a whole…
b) Could the condemnation of Metropolitan Tychikos be explained by what was openly discussed in Cyprus? On television it was publicly and by name asserted that although everyone recognizes the injustice done to Tychikos, the Patriarchate “cannot do otherwise” than uphold the will of Archbishop Georgios and the deposition of Tychikos, for two reasons:
First: the Patriarchate needs Archbishop Georgios’s support regarding Ukrainian autocephaly, since only three Greek-speaking Churches recognize it. Moreover, it was widely reported (also online) that Archbishop Georgios allegedly stated that if the Patriarchate did not support him, he would cease commemorating “Metropolitan” Epiphanius of the OCU.
Second: the Patriarchate cannot alienate Georgios and the Synod of Cyprus because the Cypriot Church generously finances it.
Both of these claims were voiced on television by a theologian of the Church of Cyprus who knows the inner workings of ecclesiastical politics quite well. Naturally, I do not share such approaches, nor do I wish to know or comment further… In any case, such rumors are deeply offensive to the Church of Cyprus, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and to all Orthodoxy. But if even a grain of truth is present, may God have mercy on us.
As for the comparison between the Patriarchal decision that exonerated the Ukrainian appellants and the one that condemned Tychikos – everyone understands that the magnitudes are incomparable. Of course we are not surprised that the deposed, anathematized, and unordained Ukrainian schismatics were “exonerated.” Their “exoneration” served as the foundation of the fragile edifice of Ukrainian autocephaly, built to advance certain geopolitical goals.
In contrast, Metropolitan Tychikos – young in years and episcopal service – enjoys the love of the people, is faithful to ecclesiastical tradition (which some find unwelcome), and leads a life of purity and transparency that renders him immune to blackmail. In the event of his vindication, he becomes potentially dangerous for spiritual–ecclesial reasons that have direct geopolitical implications. Let him who understands, understand.
Thus:
On October 17, 2025, the Patriarchal Synod of the Ecumenical Throne upheld the decision of the Synod of Cyprus and thereby affirmed the injustice, the ethos, and the style so glaringly manifested by the ecclesiastical leadership of Cyprus. At the same time, the Patriarchal decree condemned Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos and, along with him, condemned ecclesiastical order, canonical tradition, and the Church of Cyprus itself.
Above all, it doomed the people of God to orphanhood – deprived of their true spiritual Father – so that soon afterward they might receive as a stepfather one “adulterer,” supposedly “in the image and place of Christ.”
I will quote St. John Chrysostom, who, after being unjustly driven from his throne by the fury of another “beast,” Theophilus of Alexandria, wrote to Bishop Cyriacus concerning his successor Arsacius:
“I have heard about that empty babbler Arsacius… that he has grieved all the brethren who refuse to commune with him; many of them have died in prison because of me. [Your Beatitude, Archbishop of Cyprus, do you see? Others before you refused communion and rejected (!) that ‘babbler Arsacius’ who was imposed upon them as bishop in place of the unjustly deposed Chrysostom!]
For that wolf in sheep’s clothing, having the appearance of a bishop but being an adulterer, is like an adulterous woman who joins herself to another while her lawful husband is still alive. Thus this man is an adulterer, not of the flesh but of the spirit; for while I was still alive, he seized the throne of the Church.”
(St. John Chrysostom, Letter 112, “To Bishop Cyriacus in Exile”)
In another letter he writes: “When you hear of the Churches, one has sunk, another is wavering, another is overwhelmed by savage waves; one has taken a wolf instead of a shepherd, another a pirate instead of a helmsman, another an executioner instead of a healer – this is painful.”
(St. John Chrysostom, “To Olympias,” Letter II)
Sadly, ecclesiastical history is repeating itself in our days on Cyprus. And Paphos is now called to experience the post-Tychikos era just as Constantinople endured the post-Chrysostom period, when it had “a wolf instead of a shepherd, a pirate instead of a helmsman, an executioner instead of a physician.”
In Paphos, after the unjust removal of Tychikos, there will dwell – in the words of St. John Chrysostom – “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, having the appearance of a bishop but being an adulterer… an adulterer not of the flesh but of the spirit; for while the lawful bishop Tychikos lives, he has seized the throne of the Church.”
Finally:
The Patriarchal decree of October 17, 2025 is a grave blow to the very institution of appeal to the Ecumenical Throne. Who now will dare seek justice there, keeping in mind the ‘Case of Tychikos’?
Unless he resembles in character and in ‘capabilities’ the late P. M., the former metropolitan, or the excommunicated, anathematized, and unordained Ukrainian schismatics – only then will he certainly be vindicated!”
Is there any doubt that in the future, when some insistently demand recognition of the “canonical right of the elect” before the pan-Orthodox communion of Local Churches, many faithful will merely laugh, taking it as a joke? Let us reflect carefully on who will bear responsibility for this – before the faithful people, before the Church, and before history.
With deep sorrow and pain for an institution that has turned from a guarantor of justice into a rewarder of injustice,
Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Presbyter
