From protégé to pariah: The fall of Bishop Tychikos

The Holy Synod’s decision to dismiss Tychikos from the metropolitan throne of Paphos is a product of a deeply entrenched mindset within the Church of Cyprus, one that mirrors the secular world more than it diverges from it. We shouldn't forget that just two years ago, the current archbishop personally took Tychikos by the hand and anointed him as his successor.

Looking back now, if one were to try to explain how an invisible clergyman, once praised to the heavens by those who knew him, could suddenly be painted as a “wolf,” they’d quickly realize that even within the Church, the criteria for selecting bishops are tainted by very human flaws.

In 2023, when Tychikos topped the clergy-and-laity vote to be among the three candidates for bishop, no one seemed to care about his theological or ecclesiastical views. He was a young and unknown archimandrite, closely tied to the then-Metropolitan of Paphos, George. Even the Holy Synod, under pressure from the “Voice of the People,” confirmed his election with 15 votes in favor and just one against.

Back when George was still Metropolitan of Paphos, Tychikos had an audience, but not one large enough to outshine other seasoned contenders who had worn the cassock for decades. It was unspoken, but in Paphos everyone knew: George followed the usual playbook. He threw his weight behind Tychikos and gave explicit instructions to assemble the machinery needed to ensure Tychikos would make it into the final three. The rest, it seems, was up to him when the synod would later convene to elect the new metropolitan.

It’s the same tactic used by George’s predecessor, Chrysostomos, who essentially handpicked George as his successor, breaking the gentleman’s agreement made at the Kykkos Metochi, which had led to Chrysostomos’ own rise to the archbishopric. The only real difference? George didn’t turn against his mentor. He didn’t raise his own flag in rebellion—unlike Tychikos, whose actions are widely seen as a betrayal and something the archbishop reportedly took very personally.

Tychikos, like others before him, wasn’t chosen on merit, at least not in the secular sense of the word.

He got the nod because he was George’s man and because he could deliver one more vote from the Archbishop’s bloc in the Holy Synod. Plus, he was expected to go along with the wishes of the man who had elevated him—like when he welcomed the Holy Relic of the Apostle Paul’s skull to Paphos without hesitation.

If the official reasoning behind his dismissal is indeed what the Synod outlined in its statement, then the archbishop and the Synod members who voted for his removal should not stop with Tychikos alone.

Is Tychikos really the only one in the Synod who opposes Orthodox–Catholic dialogue? Is he the only one associated with theological groups that operate outside the Church’s mainstream? Why hasn’t Archbishop George brought before the Synod the so-called “group of four,” now reduced to two, for their public positions on the Pope and the Ukrainian church issue?

Even in that case, the Ecumenical Patriarchate publicly expressed its displeasure, yet neither the late Chrysostomos II nor his successor dared to touch the matter. Let’s not forget: in the past, Athens has also voiced concern over Morfou’s ties with controversial church circles in Greece. But that was never deemed grounds for his removal, as it was with Tychikos.

When it comes to the Tychikos affair, the greatest responsibility lies with Archbishop George and with the long-standing philosophy of leaving “our own people” to fill our shoes. The archbishop bears responsibility for choosing a cleric who had been by his side for years—and yet, clearly, he didn’t really know him. Because no reasonable person can believe that Tychikos suddenly developed his theological and ecclesiastical views only after ascending to the throne of Paphos. One would hope that lessons would have been learned from this ordeal.

Yet, word has it that the archbishop is already following the same path again, looking for someone to succeed Tychikos in Paphos. The most logical and proven choice, Abbot of Agios Neophytos Monastery and Bishop of Chytron, Neophytos, reportedly refuses to leave his monastery.

If Archbishop George truly wants to shield the Church of Cyprus from foreign influence, he won’t succeed by appointing people from within his personal sphere of influence. If the Church is indeed vulnerable to outside interference, the problem isn’t at the top, it’s at the foundation.

And since the Holy Synod holds both the knife and the melon, perhaps it’s time to finally end the faithful’s involvement in episcopal elections. Just as the synod chooses its members, let it also choose who gets elected. Let them put into practice the phrase “It was God’s will”—and not man’s.

*This op-ed was translated from its Greek original