EDITOR’S NOTE (Markos). The bigger question is, how did he get to what he did without anyone noticing that he was problematic or “unstable”? We certainly don’t agree with him not accepting the relics of the apostle Paul. This is a silly position that does not fit an Orthodox hierarch. The relics and holiness are not polluted by heretics..
And the fact that he called the Pope an agent of the devil is interesting from the same point of view, that is, that he “escaped” them and they made him a metropolitan with such ideas, but he is certainly neither the first nor the last to have said it… Saints have said the worst about the Pope… that’s not the issue… the issue is “how did he escape them” in general…
====================
Cyprus: Metropolitan of Paphos dismissed because he considers the Pope a “representative of the Devil”
In a statement after the end of the session, the Chief Secretary of the Archdiocese, Archimandrite Georgios Christodoulou, said that the extraordinary synod, chaired by Archbishop George, after examining the allegations against the Metropolitan of Paphos, “decided that the said archpriest remains Bishop of the Church of Cyprus and a member of the Holy Synod”.
He also said that Tychicos “is placed at the disposal of the Church, which will use him wherever he sees him, he will be given a title and a position by the Holy Synod.”
“As of today, the Archbishop assumes the duties of the Rector of the Holy Metropolis of Paphos,” he added, noting that later the Holy Synod will issue a more extensive announcement.
Tychicos is the youngest Bishop of the Church of Cyprus and succeeded Archbishop George who was Metropolitan of Paphos two years ago.
Tychicus has created various issues from time to time with his strange behavior, with the most recent describing the Pope as the representative of the Devil. In the past, he had refused to accept the skull of the Apostle Paul in Paphos because the Pope would grant it.
On another occasion he called on the faithful not to take food given to them by non-believers with their hands because they are contaminated. He even invited people to take these foods to a priest to read them!
Tychicus had expressed strong opposition to the Orthodox Church’s relations with the Vatican, positions that align with those of other clergy, such as Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou. His references to the pope included criticism of the papacy, seeing it as a source of theological and ecclesiastical divergences, influenced by the historical schism of 1054. In January 2025, Tychicus’ encyclical caused a stir as it contained extreme statements, such as a warning not to consume food or drinks offered by people “who are not close to God”, due to possible “contamination”. This reference was considered exaggerated and divisive, alienating believers from the Church and provoking the reaction of Archbishop George of Cyprus, who called for a “change of mentality” from Tychicos.
Tensions escalated when Tychicos was accused of arbitrary dismissals and appointments of commissioners, as well as administrative decisions deemed authoritarian. On May 16, he stated that he was not in confrontation with the Archbishop and that he respected the Holy Synod, but the complaints continued to pile up. The extraordinary session of the Holy Synod today examined these issues, leading to the decision to dismiss him, as it was judged that his behavior and statements harmed the unity of the Church.
He does not want relics of saints from the hands of the Pope
Metropolitan Tychicos caused a stir when he refused to transfer the skull of the Apostle Paul from the Vatican to Paphos, an event that had been agreed upon at the insistence of the former Archbishop of Cyprus Chrysostom. The chariot, which is kept in the Vatican and has never been moved outside the state, is an important Christian heirloom. Tychicus, however, stated that he does not accept the relic because it is transported by Catholics, whom he described as “heretics”. This attitude not only brought him into conflict with Archbishop George of Cyprus, but also revealed a deep distrust of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
The rejection of the skull is directly linked to Metropolitan Tychicos’ criticism of the Pope and the Catholic Church. Tychicus has described the Pope as a “heretic” and a representative of the forces of darkness.
Perhaps
Tychicus’ most extreme and controversial position is his last encyclical, in which he urged believers not to consume delivery food, as “they may throw something inside them and be possessed by demons.” He even suggested that food and refreshments – which he also described as “demonic” – be transferred to priests for “reading” in order to “get rid of” demonic energy. This statement not only provoked laughter and ironic comments on social media, but also questioned the logic and seriousness of the Metropolitan.
=====================
Κύπρος: Έκπτωτος ο Μητροπολίτης Πάφου επειδή θεωρεί τον Πάπα «εκπρόσωπο του Διαβόλου»
Σε δήλωσή του μετά το τέλος της συνεδρίας, ο Αρχιγραμματέας της Αρχιεπισκοπής, Αρχιμανδρίτης Γεώργιος Χριστοδούλου, ανέφερε ότι η έκτακτη σύνοδος, υπό την προεδρία του Αρχιεπισκόπου Γεωργίου, αφού εξέτασε τις καταγγελίες κατά του Μητροπολίτη Πάφου, «αποφάσισε όπως ο εν λόγω αρχιερέας παραμείνει Επίσκοπος της Εκκλησίας της Κύπρου και μέλος της Ιεράς Συνόδου».
Είπε ακόμη ότι ο Τυχικός «τίθεται στη διάθεση της Εκκλησίας, η οποία θα τον αξιοποιήσει όπου δει, θα του δοθεί τίτλος και θέση από την Ιερά Σύνοδο».
«Από σήμερα ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος αναλαμβάνει χρέη τοποτηρητή της Ιεράς Μητρόπολης Πάφου», πρόσθεσε, σημειώνοντας ότι αργότερα η Ιερά Σύνοδος θα εκδώσει εκτενέστερη ανακοίνωση.
Ο Τυχικός είναι ο νεότερος Επίσκοπος της Εκκλησίας της Κύπρου και διαδέχθηκε πριν από δύο χρόνια τον Αρχιεπίσκοπο Γεώργιο ο οποίος ήταν Μητροπολίτης Πάφου.
Ο Τυχικός έχει δημιουργήσει κατά καιρούς διάφορα θέματα με την περίεργη συμπεριφορά του με το πιο πρόσφατο να χαρακτηρίζει τον Πάπα εκπρόσωπο του Διαβόλου. Παλαιότερα είχε αρνηθεί την υποδοχή της κάρας του Αποστόλου Παύλου στην Πάφο επειδή θα την παραχωρούσε ο Πάπας.
Άλλη φορά καλούσε τους πιστούς να μην παίρνουν τρόφιμα που τους δίνουν αλλόθρησκοι με τα χέρια τους γιατί είναι μολυσμένα. Μάλιστα καλούσε τον κόσμο να πηγαίνει αυτά τα τρόφιμα σε ιερέα για να τα διαβάζει!
Ο Τυχικός είχε εκφράσει έντονη αντίθεση στις σχέσεις της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας με το Βατικανό, θέσεις που συντάσσονται με εκείνες άλλων κληρικών, όπως ο Μητροπολίτης Μόρφου Νεόφυτος. Οι αναφορές του για τον Πάπα περιλάμβαναν κριτική για τον παπισμό, θεωρώντας τον ως πηγή θεολογικών και εκκλησιαστικών αποκλίσεων, επηρεασμένες από το ιστορικό σχίσμα του 1054. Τον Ιανουάριο του 2025, η εγκύκλιος του Τυχικού προκάλεσε σάλο, καθώς περιείχε ακραίες δηλώσεις, όπως η προειδοποίηση να μην καταναλώνονται τρόφιμα ή ποτά που προσφέρουν άνθρωποι «που δεν είναι κοντά στον Θεό», λόγω πιθανής «μόλυνσης». Η αναφορά αυτή θεωρήθηκε υπερβολική και διχαστική, απομακρύνοντας πιστούς από την Εκκλησία και προκαλώντας την αντίδραση του Αρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου Γεωργίου, ο οποίος ζήτησε «αλλαγή νοοτροπίας» από τον Τυχικό.
Οι εντάσεις κλιμακώθηκαν όταν ο Τυχικός κατηγορήθηκε για αυθαίρετες παύσεις και διορισμούς επιτρόπων, καθώς και για διοικητικές αποφάσεις που θεωρήθηκαν αυταρχικές. Στις 16 Μαΐου, ο ίδιος δήλωσε ότι δεν βρίσκεται σε αντιπαράθεση με τον Αρχιεπίσκοπο και ότι σέβεται την Ιερά Σύνοδο, ωστόσο οι καταγγελίες συνέχισαν να συσσωρεύονται. Η έκτακτη συνεδρία της Ιεράς Συνόδου σήμερα εξέτασε αυτά τα ζητήματα, οδηγώντας στην απόφαση για την έκπτωσή του, καθώς κρίθηκε ότι η συμπεριφορά του και οι δηλώσεις του έβλαψαν την ενότητα της Εκκλησίας.
Δεν θέλει λείψανα Αγίων από τα χέρια του Πάπα
Ο Μητροπολίτης Τυχικός προκάλεσε σάλο όταν αρνήθηκε τη μεταφορά της κάρας του Αποστόλου Παύλου από το Βατικανό στην Πάφο, ένα γεγονός που είχε συμφωνηθεί κατόπιν επιμονής του τέως Αρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου Χρυσοστόμου. Η κάρα, που φυλάσσεται στο Βατικανό και δεν έχει ποτέ μεταφερθεί εκτός του κρατιδίου, αποτελεί σημαντικό χριστιανικό κειμήλιο. Ο Τυχικός, ωστόσο, δήλωσε ότι δεν δέχεται το κειμήλιο επειδή μεταφέρεται από Καθολικούς, τους οποίους χαρακτήρισε «αιρετικούς». Η στάση του αυτή όχι μόνο έφερε σε σύγκρουση τον ίδιο με τον Αρχιεπίσκοπο Κύπρου Γεώργιο, αλλά και αποκάλυψε μια βαθιά δυσπιστία προς τον οικουμενικό διάλογο μεταξύ Ορθοδοξίας και Καθολικισμού.
Η απόρριψη της κάρας συνδέεται άμεσα με την κριτική του Μητροπολίτη Τυχικού προς τον Πάπα και την Καθολική Εκκλησία. Ο Τυχικός, έχει χαρακτηρίσει τον Πάπα «αιρετικό», και εκπρόσωπο δυνάμεων του σκότους.
Τα «μολυσμένα» τρόφιμα με ντελίβερι
Ίσως η πιο ακραία και αμφιλεγόμενη θέση του Τυχικού είναι η περσινή του εγκύκλιος, με την οποία προέτρεψε τους πιστούς να μην καταναλώνουν φαγητά ντελίβερι, καθώς «μπορεί να τους ρίξουν κάτι μέσα και να καταληφθούν από δαιμόνια». Πρότεινε μάλιστα να μεταφέρονται τα τρόφιμα και τα αναψυκτικά –τα οποία επίσης χαρακτήρισε «δαιμονικά»– σε ιερείς για «διάβασμα», ώστε να «απαλλαγούν» από τη δαιμονική ενέργεια. Αυτή η δήλωση όχι μόνο προκάλεσε γέλιο και ειρωνικά σχόλια στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης, αλλά και έθεσε υπό αμφισβήτηση τη λογική και τη σοβαρότητα του Μητροπολίτη.
Ο μη αναμάρτητος….. πρώτος τον λίθον βαλέτω ……
Ιησούς Χριστός
No! They want him gone because he is a great enemy of political ecumenism. He rightly calls the Pope and the pope-worshipers (the Papists) heretics and outside the Church. He also rightly forbids mixed marriages within the Holy Orthodox Church!
If he really made the pronouncements regarding delivery food, I’m sure there’s more to it than is being said. The writer of this article seems biased against Met. Tichikos.
You may be correct, and it’s obvious that only one biased side of the story is being published in that Pentapostagma article. And I certainly don’t disagree with complaining about “pope-worshippers”, and treasonous metropolitans that have been seen on youtube videos kissing the hand of the Pope and referring to him as “Παναγιωτατε”…
However, the big question here is, if Tychikos is truly an enemy of political ecumenism, how did he rise to the rank of metropolitan in the Church of Cyprus, whose Synod the previous Archbishop expanded PRECISELY in order to have enough “favorable votes” to enthrone more “pro-Constantinople” (ecumenist) bishops? That’s the big unsolved mystery here…how did someone with a anti-ecumenist mindset “slip through the cracks”? And if we theorize that he was a “sleeper cell” of tradition (within a Synod of bishops whose majority doesn’t mind recognizing Epiphanios of Kiev), was this really the most strategic “hill to die on” that he could select? Now he’s pretty much finished…they have sidelined him and made him ineffective in future decision making…The Synod of Cyprus will never end up with an “anti-ecumenical” majority if the “anti-ecumenists” in the minority provoke the majority to the point that they keep getting driven out…a bit of strategy and timing is always in order for the greater good, too, isn’t it…?
It is also quite possible that there are other factors at play that we may never find out, and they are simply using the “justification” points in the article as a superficial “cover story”…
Maybe the fact that the laity in Cyprus still maintains the right to vote in elections of Hierarchs has something to do with it? We need to research it.
I think they only vote for archbishop, but even then the people’s wish has been totally ignored by the Synod the last 2 rounds…
A formerly Protestant woman who was received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation and even given a new Orthodox name was forbidden by this bishop to have an Orthodox wedding to an Orthodox man because she was not received by baptism. This bishop insisted that she be baptized first. That’s a very extreme viewpoint, I must say.
https://spzh.eu/en/news/86443-media-cypriot-synod-deposes-bishop-following-letter-from-pat-bartholomew
It may appear extreme to you in the year 2025, but 200 years ago it was totally the norm across a huge percentage of the Greek speaking Churches, after 1800 years of Church history, and 800 years of formal Schism with the West. And the problem with this dichotomy is that there has never been an Ecumenical Synod decision on this, mainly because the Papal / Protestant heresies showed up after the first 7 Ecumenical Synods, so now “local Synods” such as Constantinople and others are trying to interpret which “modern heresies” can and cannot be accepted without baptism based on Ecumenical decisions that were made about “much older” and “arguably different” heresies that may not be “congruent” to Roman Catholicism / Protestantism. And even there, various Patriarchates and Synods today end up opposite positions on what to do about some of these “heresies”, resulting in this example that you cite. Tychikos was siding with the older, more conservative approach to matters, which was very prevalent for 800 years of Church history since the “Great Schism”. It’s not as simple as providing a “modern lens” to this…there should be a Pan-Orthodox Synod to settle this, but promoting woke agendas is more important than doing the much needed work of the Church in our modern era, squandering good opportunity. It’s sad that Constantinople decided to make a mess of the 2016 Synod agenda, by deviating from 60+ years of Pan-Orthodox collaboration on the topics that needed to be settled across the board (this Constantinopolitan insistence to deviate from the agenda largely contributed to the notable absence of major Patriarchates, resulting in a “downgrade” of this Synod to an expensive photo-op, rather than a Pan-Orthodox Synod)…we lost a big opportunity to have this settled in a Pan-Orthodox manner.
This is not a defense of Tychikos or his position. It’s an expose of the problem at hand. What you didn’t tell us about that “Protestant woman” is what denomination she was from, if her “bishop” was female/lesbian (what kind of doors would the Church be opening by accepting baptisms as valid from those avenues), and most importantly, what was the “method” of her Protestant baptism. There are dozens of critical detailed factors at play, and in the last several years outrageous things have appeared in the Protestant world that may have rendered the 60-year old practice of “economy” on this matter worthy of reconsideration on a wider (and situational) scale…
Finally, another “minor” but important point to consider is, The concept of Orthodox Initiation (what we refer to as Baptism) consists of 3 main parts. 1) Renunciation of Satan & Confession of Faith 2) Baptism in Sanctified Water 3) Chrismation
Most Protestant sects omit the first and the third parts. There is a fairly old Synodal decision that required Roman Catholics / Protestants to renounce their prior dogmas in a public statement before they were initiated into the Orthodox Church. Have any of you ever observed Roman Catholics being Chrismated actually read a statement “I renounce the Pope as a heretic, an reject the dogmas of Papal Primacy, infallibility, etc…” in a public manner? How many of these “luke-warm” Roman Catholics and Protestants that have been Chrismated in the past 60 years do you feel would have refused to read such a statement, because in their hearts and conscience they really weren’t Orthodox, but they were simply being Chrismated to placate their husbands or wives? We need to start taking “step 1” a lot more seriously when it comes to Adult Initiations into the Orthodox Church. I once saw a muslim that was being baptized Orthodox in a “non-Greek” jurisdiction read a statement in a loud voice declaring that Mohammed was a false prophet prior to the Baptism. That puts a target on this person’s back for sure (especially if that person were to visit their country of origin where the relatives would have to “clear the insult to the family name”), but that’s the original spirit of Christian dedication & martyrdom that we seem to have lost here…
A lot to think about, but again, it’s not a defense of Tychikos…just an expose of the inconsistent mess that the bishops across the board still need to untangle here…
Markos, yes, the reception of converts can be a confusing and heated topic.
Almost four hundred years ago, in 1667, the Russian Church began accepting the *form* of baptism of heretical Roman Catholics and Protestants. Those heretics were received solely through the grace of reconciliation and the sacrament of chrismation into the Orthodox Church. In some cases, such as with the reception of Roman Catholic clergy, the sacrament of chrismation was entirely skipped. All of this was considered a hugely controversial practice by Constantinople for many years.
In more recent times, however, Constantinople has come to accept the Russian practice.
The Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils made a list of heretical groups, including Arians, that should be received by chrismation without repeating the *form* of baptism. Those same canons also include a list of those whose form of baptism is not accepted.
Those canons that accept the form of baptism of heretics aren’t suggesting that those baptisms have the grace of the Church, but rather that the *form* of baptism doesn’t need to be repeated. The grace of the Church comes ultimately through reconciliation with the Church.
You are trying to present things in a twisted manner, that it is Constantinople that is “accepting” an older Russian practice of dealing with undoing a ton of “Uniate activity” en masse in their lands… The two situations are not historically congruent, especially since the “Catholics” you refer to were Uniates dressed in Orthodox robes, conducting Orthodox services, including the baptismal rites. Furthermore, in the 1600s, you didn’t have the phenomenon of “women/lesbian bishops” in the Protestant world…a blanket “acceptance” of all Protestant baptisms cannot be valid even under the prism of the 1660s… and I repeat…the 2nd and 6th Ecumenical Council Canons were for different heresies…there hasn’t been a decisive Pan-Orthodox settlement to date for the Roman Catholic / Protestant heresies and offshoots…
Nevertheless, in this case it appears from emerging media reports that Constantinople bullied the Archbishop of Cyprus to “discipline” this metropolitan….and of course he could, because the Synod of Cyprus was expanded under the previous Archbishop Chrysostomos in order to have a majority of “pro-Constantinople puppets” vote anyway Constantinople wants…It’s probably going to turn into a supplemental article on Helleniscope…the wording of the cited letters is interesting, because Constantinople is not calling Tychikos “heretical”, but “anachronistic”, in other words representing “old views” (that used to be widely accepted as the norm until recently)…the big issue is, Constantinople is trying to impose its will on other local Churches, instead of doing the right thing back in 2016 when it had the chance in Crete…to convene a Synod with the agenda that had been agreed upon for the previous 60 years, and not the agenda that it “forced” in the end. But Constantinople is afraid, because there are more Orthodox bishops outside of Constantinople’s sphere of influence than within, and because of Constantinople’s “progressiveness” and “papist ambitions” beginning in the late 1800s, a real Pan-Orthodox Synod, with all Orthodox bishops present (which was the Synodal tradition established by God on the day of Pentecost, when ALL apostles were instructed to be present, and not “SOME” apostles) would result in a “slap in the face”…
Markos, there are many anachronisms that are no longer practiced in the mainstream of Orthodoxy, such as female deacons, crossing oneself with two fingers instead of three, and speaking in tongues as at Pentecost (now replaced with the prayer of the heart.)
Holy Tradition is alive and is not an anachronism. The Church strives to keep the same spirit, the same message, the same faith. In order to do so, however, sometimes it is necessary to make changes.
“In contemporary times there are two distinct understandings of how to receive non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church. The first method, which Greeks refer to as ‘Russian’ consists of dividing non-Orthodox into three categories for the purposes of conversion. In the first category, those who convert are baptized. In the second, they are chrismated. In the third, they are received by the rite of repentance, a repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. As has been demonstrated above, this practice is based on the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, on the direct authority of St. Mark of Ephesus, the Constantinople Council of 1484, the decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1655 and especially of 1667, the decisions of the Holy Council of 1718 as well as later decisions and directives of the Holy Ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is true that there was a time in the Russian Church when Roman Catholics (and Protestants) were received into Orthodoxy by means of baptism, but throughout the thousand year history of the Russian Church this was only in effect for 45 to 47 years after which that practice of receiving all non-Orthodox without distinction was condemned and repealed once and for all.”
https://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html#:~:text=It%20is%20true%20that%20there,receiving%20all%20non%2DOrthodox%20without
Joseph,
New heresies appear all the time. The Church historically decided how to accept people from each individual heresy on a “pan-Orthodox” basis. That’s the “evolving tradition” that you speak of, and it has to do with reacting to new situations (heresies) on the ground. However, that has yet to occur for the heresies of Roman Catholicism and the continual variant Protestant offshoots that are still popping up…it’s almost a “full-time job” for Orthodoxy to keep up.
There has not been a common Ecumenical Council agreement across ALL of Orthodoxy on what to do with Roman Catholics and each of these variant heresies within the larger Protestant movement. And “what to do” is exactly what you said above…which ones can be accepted with only Repudiation of heresy+ Chrismation, and which ones with a Repudiation + full baptism…
Until there is a “common understanding”, there will continue to be confusion across jurisdictions, but this demand to depose a metropolitan of another jurisdiction because of a dispute over the other juridiction’s application of economy is not the right approach or precedent here, either…
And by the way, this case had to do with a Protestant…we don’t know what kind of Protestant, etc…the councils you cite were mostly dealing with Roman Catholics, not Protestant offshoots, especially extreme “woke” offshoots of the modern era, so this case is not exactly relevant to a lot of what you are citing…
And Joseph,
When the French professor who spoke no Greek went behind closed doors to speak with St. Porphyrios, and came out extremely satisfied with the discussion, claiming that St. Porphyrios spoke perfect French, when he in fact had never taken a day of French in his life, do you feel that this was an “anachronism”? You have no clue what the traditional Patristic explanation is of how the Holy Spirit enables the concept of “speaking in tongues” , do you?
Stephanos, I agree with your statements but not accepting relics because they are from the Vatican is a bit of a stretch, unless the catholics treated the relics or did something to them. Otherwise, an Apostle’s relics are holy relics, no matter what.
Did the Synod break the rules?
“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.”
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/86456-deposition-of-bishop-and-fall-of-the-church-on-shocking-events-in-cyprus
That too, sure you can probably add that to the pile….but when the “Investigative Committee” consists of people that were “packed” by the previous administration, you’re not exactly going to get a “fair hearing”, either…