A Miscarriage of Justice: How the Phanar Betrayed Met. Tychikos

The term “ékklēton” (appeal) is the right of a cleric who feels wronged to appeal to a higher ecclesiastical court (Law 590/1977, art. 160). In current Orthodox usage, however, it mainly refers to the canonical privilege of the Ecumenical Patriarch to hear appeals from clergy under his jurisdiction who believe they have been unjustly treated by their local courts.

Historically, the institution first appears in Canons 3 and 5 of the Council of Serdica (A.D. 343). To protect St. Athanasius the Great and like-minded bishops deposed by multiple councils, the case was referred to Pope Julius of Rome. The Pope was allowed to form the court himself, but this gave him only a procedural right, not personal appellate jurisdiction. The provision was short-lived: the North African Church repeatedly rejected it at Carthage (A.D. 419) and forbade its clergy from appealing “over the sea” to Rome.

Later, Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 451) granted the right of final appeal to the Throne of Constantinople. Canonists disagree whether this applies universally or only to clergy under Constantinople’s direct jurisdiction. Following St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s authoritative interpretation, the right is limited: “The Bishop of Constantinople has no authority to act in the dioceses or parishes of other Patriarchs, nor was the universal right of appeal granted to him by this canon” (Pidalion, p. 192, fn. 1).

Nevertheless, the Statutory Charters of the Churches of Greece (Law 590/1977, art. 44 §2) and Cyprus (article 81) explicitly grant their own hierarchs the right to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even though they are not under its jurisdiction. This statutory right does not contradict the sacred canons.

It was precisely this statutory right that Met. Tychikos of Paphos invoked on 5 July 2025, appealing his deposition by the Synod of Cyprus on 22 May 2025.

On 17 October 2025 the Patriarchal Synod partially accepted the appeal, acknowledging procedural violations (“omissions” regarding the Statutory Charter) that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Yet, in the same decision, every member unanimously ratified the Cypriot Synod’s decision—i.e., they confirmed a ruling they had just declared procedurally flawed and unjust.

The Greek Council of State (decision 1983/1979) had already ruled that, when an appeal uncovers any formal or substantive illegality, the original act must be annulled and the case returned for proper retrial in conformity with the Patriarchate’s findings. The Patriarchal Synod did not follow this precedent.

Three recent high-profile appeals illustrate inconsistent application:

A. Former Metropolitan of the Church of Greece, a convicted felon

This metropolitan bishop (whose name we will not mention, as he has since reposed) was convicted of felony embezzlement in the amount of €56 million; he was imprisoned and found with >€1.5 million in offshore accounts. Shameful recorded conversations were also circulated.

This bishop was deposed by the Church of Greece without proper canonical trial. He submitted three successive appeals to Constantinople. All three times (2005, 2009, 2010) the Patriarchate accepted the appeals, annulled the acts for procedural defects, ordered a full canonical trial, and never entered the substance of the grave charges or the public scandal.

The Patriarchate never urged the Metropolitan to accept the local Synod’s decisions for his spiritual benefit or for Church peace—the advice later given to Metropolitan Tychikos.

B. Ukrainian schismatics

Philaret Denysenko (UOC–KP) was deposed by Moscow in 1992 and anathematised in 1997. His 1992 appeal to Constantinople was examined and rejected the same year, with Constantinople fully recognising Moscow’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Makary Maletych (UAOC) and his followers had never been canonically ordained at all. No condemnatory decision existed against Makary, so legally there was no object for an appeal.

On October 11, 2018 the Ecumenical Patriarchate suddenly accepted “appeals” from both, “restored” them to episcopal/priestly rank, and never published the texts of those appeals or explained how someone never validly ordained can be “restored.”

Again, no call was made for them to submit to their former Church’s decisions for their spiritual benefit or Church peace.

C. Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos

Met. Tychikos was “deposed” on 22 May 2025. His “deposition” violated every provision of the Statutory Charter and elementary fair-trial principles. There was no investigation, no prosecutor, no indictment, no witnesses, no defence counsel, no opportunity to examine evidence or speak.

Moreover, all accusations later collapsed as baseless or slanderous.

It’s worth noting that, under Met. Tychikos—whose reign lasted for just two years, from 2023–2025—the Metropolis of Paphos experienced unprecedented spiritual and financial flourishing. Revenue rose from ~€509,000 in 2022 to approximately €2 million.

The Holy Synod of Constantinople acknowledged the complete absence of due process. And yet, instead of annulling the act and returning the case for proper trial, it judged the substance itself—without witnesses or evidence!—and unanimously confirmed the deposition.

It added the exhortation (absent in the previous cases) that Tychikos should submit to the Cypriot Synod’s decision “for his own spiritual benefit and for Church peace.”

Direct comparison reveals irreconcilable outcomes for essentially identical procedural objections. The felonious metropolitan was protected three times and never tried on the merits; Tychikos, who committed no proven offence, and enjoys an exemplary episcopal record, had his manifestly unjust deposition ratified on the merits by the same court.

Public commentary in Cyprus openly attributed the different outcome to political and financial leverage: the Ecumenical Patriarchate allegedly needs Abp. Georgios (the primate of Cyprus) to support Ukraine’s autocephaly, as only three Greek-speaking Churches recognise the OCU. The Phanar also receives generous funding from Cyprus.

Whatever the reason, the 17 October 2025 decision ratified a blatant miscarriage of justice, condemned a blameless hierarch while protecting convicted or schismatic ones in similar or worse circumstances, and dealt the severest blow to the credibility of the ancient institution of appeal to the Ecumenical Throne.

When clergy in future crises are told they possess the “canonical right of ékklēton,” many faithful will now smile bitterly—because, for them, the “Tychikos case” has turned a guarantee of justice into a reward for injustice.

Read also