Former Metr. Tychikos' Legal Team Questions Archbishopric's Role in Paphos Removal, Raises Financial Concerns
Legal representatives allege procedural injustices, question loan arrangements, and call for answers regarding the former hierarch's 2025 deposition.
PAPHOS, CYPRUS — The legal office representing former Metr. Tychikos of Paphos has issued a detailed public statement challenging the actions of the Church of Cyprus surrounding his removal from office and raising new questions about financial arrangements involving the Metropolis of Paphos and the Archbishopric of Cyprus.
The June 8 statement was released in response to comments from the Audit Department of the Archbishopric, which had dismissed allegations made by Tychikos' representatives concerning loans and financial management. According to the legal office, the issue has never been the existence of loans themselves, but rather questions regarding the legality and terms of a refinancing arrangement that transferred a substantial debt of the Metropolis of Paphos through the Archbishopric.
The statement recounts that the Metropolis inherited a debt of approximately €3.24 million, which had accumulated before Tychikos' election as metropolitan. According to the former hierarch's account, Abp. Georgios — who previously served as head of the Paphos see — had promised that the Archbishopric would assist in paying off the debt if he were elected Archbishop of Cyprus.
Instead, the legal office claims, the Archbishopric arranged a new loan through a bank of its own choosing and required two major properties belonging to the Metropolis of Paphos — valued at approximately €5.5 million at the time — to be mortgaged as collateral. The statement further alleges that the loan carried an interest rate of approximately 6 to 6.5 percent, significantly above prevailing market rates, and required repayment within five years.
"... Tychikos expressed his concern at the time both regarding the interest rate and regarding the short period for repayment of the loan, given the possible loss of the mortgaged property of the Metropolis," the statement says. "But as a new Metropolitan faced with an untamable debt that he inherited, he did not have many options."
The legal office also repeated a claim that Abp. Georgios allegedly tied financial assistance to Tychikos' acceptance of the relic of the skull of the Apostle Paul.
This is in reference to an early 2025 dispute in which then-Metr. Tychikos rejected the reception of a relic of St. Paul that was to visit Paphos from the Vatican in honor of the Apostle's ministry in the region. Tychikos reportedly rejected this visit with the explanation of not wanting to pray with Catholics and thereby confuse the faithful, as well as not to allow the gifting of relics to be used as a condition for ecumenical reproachment.
As the visit had been arranged by the late Abp. Chrysostomos and Pope Francis years prior and also hoped for by Abp. Georgios, this caused a rift between the two. Tychikos' legal team alleges that Abp. Georgios told Tychikos: “If you want me to pay the loan, you will accept the skull relic and do what I tell you.”
Beyond the financial issues, Tychikos' representatives raised five questions regarding the circumstances surrounding his removal from the Metropolitan Throne of Paphos in May 2025. Among them are questions about the Archbishopric's role in managing the Metropolis' finances, the timing of Tychikos' deposition shortly after he announced plans for independent audits of Church-affiliated developments, the dissolution of the Metropolis' Financial Council after Archbishop Georgios became administrator, and allegations of an uninvestigated conspiracy involving local political figures.
The statement concludes by arguing that the rapid sequence of events surrounding Tychikos' deposition, suspension, and removal from the Metropolis constituted a violation of both ecclesiastical and natural justice. It alleges that proper canonical procedures were not followed and criticizes the immediate implementation of Church decisions before review by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The statement further argues that, although the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized procedural irregularities, it did not recommend repeating the process as it had done in a previous appeal involving another metropolitan.
The release comes amid continuing controversy surrounding Tychikos' removal and just days before the scheduled enthronement of Metropolitan-elect Grigorios of Paphos. Supporters of the former metropolitan have continued to challenge the legitimacy of the process and have vowed to pursue both ecclesiastical and legal remedies.
The Archbishopric of Cyprus has not publicly responded to the latest allegations contained in the statement. The full release of Tychikos' legal team is published in English below.
PRESS RELEASE – 08.06.2026
Extended response occasioned by the publication
– No reference from the Audit Department of the Archbishopric and/or the Archbishop regarding the amount of the loan interest rate –
First of all, the responding statements on behalf of the Audit Department of the Archbishopric in the above publication are not specific. The statements concerning loans made by the Lawyer of Metropolitan (former) of Paphos Mr. Tychikos are not his personal statements, but express judgments and raise questions of his Client himself, Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos, as the materially competent authority during the period in question, concerning the matters being addressed.
In the references of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos or his representatives, by His instruction, there was no judgment regarding the expediency of taking out loans, since it was in any case mentioned that loans existed under previous administrative administrations, and indeed under the predecessor of the then Metropolitan of Paphos, and now Archbishop, Mr. Georgios, but issues of legality were raised.
Regarding the loan to which the Audit Department of the Archbishopric refers, the facts as stated, and as Metropolitan (former) of Paphos Mr. Tychikos remembers them, are as follows:
For a pre-existing debt of the Metropolis of Paphos to a Bank in the total amount of approximately €3,242,899, plus interest and other charges, as it increased due to the fact that the Holy Metropolis of Paphos was unable to pay a final installment to the Bank on 31.12.2021 (prior to the election of Mr. Tychikos as Metropolitan of Paphos), its payment was arranged to be made in December 2023 so that there would be no further financial consequences for the Metropolis of Paphos.
For the repayment of this debt there was initially the promise of the Archbishop of Cyprus Mr. Georgios, as Metropolitan of Paphos, that if he were elected Archbishop, the Archbishopric would provide the money to repay the debt (from old loans) of the Metropolis of Paphos to the Bank. This had been announced by the Archbishop, as Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos states, both to him and to employees of the Metropolis of Paphos.
After the election of the Metropolitan of Paphos as Archbishop, and regarding the matter that arose with the Skull of the Apostle Paul, the Archbishop is said to have told Metropolitan of Paphos Mr. Tychikos at that time: “If you want me to pay the loan, you will accept the Skull, and you will do whatever I tell you.”
Subsequently, in order to repay the debt, because it was said by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric to the Archbishop that if the debt was not paid, the Metropolis would “close,” in the sense that it would lose its property, then the following solution was found:
The Archbishopric proceeded, on the one hand, to conclude a loan with a Bank of its exclusive choice and, on the other hand, to enter into a written agreement with the Metropolis of Paphos (which was drafted by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric), so that with the amount of the loan from the other Bank chosen by the Archbishopric, the debt from the old loans would be repaid directly to the Bank to which the Metropolis of Paphos was indebted.
As security for the conclusion of the loan with the new Bank with which the Archbishopric contracted, and to secure repayment of the loan by the Metropolis of Paphos to the (interposed) Archbishopric, which would in turn repay the loan to the Bank with which it had contracted, two (2) large properties of the Metropolis of Paphos, valued at approximately five and a half million euros at the time, and much more today, were mortgaged in favor of the Archbishopric.
Furthermore, for this new loan an interest rate of approximately 6% or 6.5% was agreed between the Archbishopric and the Bank of its choice. Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos recalls that the accountant of the Metropolis of Paphos had stated at the time that a loan with such an interest rate was usurious because of its level, in comparison with the prevailing rates of the time, which ranged from 3.5% to 4.5%. Therefore, the question arose—and still arises—why another Bank could not have been chosen that would have required a lower interest rate, considering also the mortgaging of significant properties of the Metropolis of Paphos, which it had been agreed would be transferred by the Metropolis of Paphos to the Archbishopric in the event of difficulty in repaying the debt.
The properties of the Metropolis of Paphos to be mortgaged were also selected by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric. In addition, a condition was imposed that the loan, together with the interest, be repaid by the Metropolis of Paphos to the Archbishopric within five years, that is, within a short period of time.
Metropolitan of Paphos Mr. Tychikos expressed his concern at the time both regarding the interest rate and regarding the short period for repayment of the loan, given the possible loss of the mortgaged property of the Metropolis. But as a new Metropolitan faced with an untamable debt that he inherited, he did not have many options.
The reference in the statements of the representative of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos concerned the high interest rate of this loan, whether to the new Bank or to the Archbishopric (this is posed as a question), and not the existence of loans in itself, the expediency of which concerns the Church, but the legality of which concerns everyone.
Regarding the fact of the amount of this interest rate and the repayment period, which constitute the core of the statements of the representative of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos, the Audit Department of the Archbishopric gives no answer. Instead, it invokes “claims” concerning alleged “shameless, harmful falsehoods and defamatory references” on the part of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos and his representative, which do not exist, as explained above.
And ultimately, major questions reasonably arise, such as:
- What was, ultimately, the assistance of the Archbishopric in this specific issue of the loans
- Why such haste to replace the Metropolitan of Paphos in view of all these financial pending matters and arrangements that Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos had begun to tame and put in order?
- Why, within a period of at most two months from the time Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos publicly declared that he would appoint certified auditors to examine the management of the Saint George Hotel and Minthis Hills units with the company Pafilia, regarding their contractual obligations to the Metropolis of Paphos, did the Archbishop cause the removal of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos from the Metropolitan Throne of Paphos in May 2025?
- Why, as soon as the Archbishop assumed the role of Locum Tenens in the Metropolis of Paphos, did he automatically abolish the Financial Council of the Metropolis of Paphos?
- Why has the official complaint of the acting Mayor of Paphos concerning a conspiracy involving the possibility of financial inducements between the Archbishop and the Mayor of Paphos, with the aim of dethroning Metropolitan of Paphos Mr. Tychikos, still not been investigated?
All of the above, systematically interpreted and viewed in light of the near-light-speed process not only of dethronement, not only of suspension, but also of the “threatening” expulsion of Metropolitan Mr. Tychikos from the premises of the Metropolis of Paphos, with an authority that only a Prosecutor or a Court could assume, without a fair trial having preceded it, without even formally observing, for appearances’ sake, the provisions of the Charter of the Church of Cyprus and the relevant Holy Canons, with the immediate execution of all decisions of the Church of Cyprus without even awaiting their confirmation by the Ecumenical Patriarchate [which, although it recognized the procedural invalidities, did not rise to the occasion by recommending the repetition of the procedure, as it did in the past in an appeal by another Metropolitan], cannot be considered mere coincidence. On the contrary, they constitute a blatant, violent, and brutal violation of the principles of natural and ecclesiastical justice, which no subsequent “electoral” procedure can remedy, and into which justice ought to delve not for anyone’s personal benefit, but for Justice itself and respect for the value of the Human Person.
From the Office of Legal Representation of His Eminence Metropolitan (former) of Paphos Mr. Tychikos, by his instruction.
Previously, the UOJ reported that the Church of Cyprus had elected a new Metropolitan of Paphos.
