"Spiritual adultery": a living bishop, a new successor, and a Church divided
The Metropolitan of Paphos was removed without a clear accusation or trial, and his see has already been given to another. Why believers and theologians are speaking of a canonical wound and “spiritual adultery.”
When the removal of a bishop from his see is at stake, there can be no true peace without a just trial and canonical precision. Otherwise, accusations rooted in relationships, personal feelings, and emotions – rather than in the Canons of the Church – will only give rise to problems that tear apart the Body of Christ.
This is precisely why the recent events surrounding the Metropolis of Paphos have unfolded as a deep ecclesiastical crisis shaking the Church of Cyprus. Formally, on May 26, the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus elected Archimandrite Grigorios Ioannidis as the new Metropolitan of Paphos. According to Philenews, he received 11 votes, while Hieromonk Sophronios Stasinos received one, and four members abstained. Grigorios’ consecration and enthronement are scheduled for June 11, 2026.
Let us recall that before this, the Synod of the Church of Cyprus changed the Charter. However, the question of the legitimacy of these changes, considering that the Metropolitan of Paphos (the second most important metropolis of Cyprus after Nicosia) was absent from the vote on the new Charter, remains open. So, according to the new version of this document, ordinary believers will no longer participate in the election of metropolitans, but only members of the Holy Synod. Therefore, formally, Archimandrite Gregory was elected in accordance with the new Charter of the Church of Cyprus. But in this situation, let us emphasize the word "formally."
The fact is that a significant part of the flock, theologians and clergy of Cyprus perceive this election not as healing the wound caused by the unlawful removal of Metropolitan Tychikos from the see of Paphos, but as cementing a controversial and spiritually dangerous situation.
At the same time, the faithful of the Paphos Metropolis quite justifiably refer to the 16th canon of the Quinisext Council, which states: "Because of the disputes and disturbances that occur in the Church of God, it is necessary to determine this as well: let no bishop be appointed in that church whose prelate is still alive and remains in his dignity, unless he himself voluntarily renounces the episcopate. For it is necessary first to bring to an end the lawful investigation of the guilt for which he is to be removed from the episcopate, and then, after his deposition, to elevate another to the episcopate in his place."
Metropolitan Tychikos is alive, has not submitted a voluntary resignation, has not received a "lawful investigation of guilt" and, accordingly, does not publicly recognize his removal as lawful, continuing to consider himself the canonical archbishop of Paphos.
From this point of view
the Paphos see is not widowed, which means that its hasty replacement poses a painful question for the entire Church: is it possible to "fill" a throne if the former bishop was removed without a real trial, without the presentation of canonical accusations and with the most serious violations of the trial procedure itself?
Why Gregory's election is called "spiritual adultery"
In the Orthodox tradition, the connection between a bishop and his diocese is not reduced to an employment contract or administrative appointment. A bishop is not a manager of a religious structure who can be replaced by a majority decision. He is a witness to church unity, a pastor of a specific people and the primate of a particular local Church. Therefore, ancient church thought often described the connection between a bishop and his see in images of marriage.
This is precisely where the grave canonical concept of μοιχεπιβασία arises, which in church journalism is translated as "adulterous ascension" or, more simply, spiritual adultery: the occupation of another's see if it has not become truly vacant. In a theological-canonical analysis published on June 1, "Paphos: can a throne be filled while Tychikos declares his presence?" it is directly stated that Church history knows widowed sees, but does not know sees that become "vacant" simply because someone decided to consider them as such.
"When a bishop is alive, objects, appeals, rejects procedures that he considers anti-canonical, and declares that he remains the canonical pastor of his diocese, then the main question is not who will become his successor, but whether his throne has become widowed at all," the publication states.
This argument was also supported by the well-known Greek theologian, Protopresbyter Arsenios Vliagkoftis. According to him, if Tychikos did not recognize the legitimacy of his removal, if he did not leave voluntarily and if there was no impeccably conducted canonical trial, then the election of a new metropolitan does not solve the problem (if there is one at all), but only deepens it.
Of course, the official line of the Archbishopric and the majority of the Synod is built on a different foundation: its supporters believe that Tychikos' case is closed, and the Paphos Metropolis should "return to normal course." But church reality is not exhausted by voting, and if the people of God and a huge number of Greek theologians see in the Synod's decision not only injustice, but also a canonical wound, then the wound itself will not heal from this.
Tychikos' voice: "I was not heard"
Special attention should be paid to Metropolitan Tychikos' official appeal of May 25, 2026. This is not just an emotional letter from an offended person. This is a confessional text of a hierarch who, remaining within church consciousness, demands the simplest thing: to be judged in truth, according to canons and with a real right to defense.
In his appeal, Metropolitan Tychikos reminds the flock that he was born and raised in Paphos, that he served this metropolis for about 25 years as protosyncellus (analogous to a diocesan secretary in Churches of Slavic tradition) and perceived his election not as a "throne of power," but as a cross of responsibility. He claims that he was removed from his see "in an atmosphere of slander, pressure and false accusations," and the procedure itself, according to him, had nothing in common with a fair trial.
Several points of his appeal are particularly important.
First, he states that the decision on his removal was predetermined even before the "judges" truly heard the "accused."
Second, he claims that the accusations were never presented to him clearly and fully. He still does not know in full who accused him, what exact evidence was presented and on what basis he was considered unworthy of ministry.
"The decision on removal preceded the accusations," is how one of the central thoughts of Metropolitan Tychikos' appeal can be briefly conveyed.
No less important is his position regarding the request for forgiveness he made. Tychikos emphasizes that this was not an admission of guilt. This was, according to him, a "plea of humility and pain" for the sake of peace, unity and love in the Church. Thus, he actually destroys possible manipulation:
if a hierarch asks for forgiveness as a Christian, this does not yet mean that he recognizes the justice of the guilty verdict.
The appeal also contains a legally significant block. The bishop states that he intends to appeal to civil and, if necessary, European judicial instances to verify whether a fair procedure was observed, whether he had a real opportunity to defend himself and whether the Sacred Canons, the Constitution of Cyprus and basic principles of human rights were applied. At the same time, he emphasizes that he does not want to fight with the Church: on the contrary, he explains his actions by the desire not to allow the Church to be stained with unjust condemnation.
This is why his appeal cannot be dismissed as "disobedience." In the Orthodox tradition, obedience is not blind agreement with procedural and administrative untruth. True obedience is born in truth. If a person is judged without a clear accusation, without open evidence and without full defense, then the demand for trial according to canons becomes not rebellion, but church necessity.
The Synod did not hear the appeal, but accusations of a "clique" were heard
Judging by subsequent actions, Metropolitan Tychikos' appeal did not become a reason for the Synod to stop and try to reconsider a case in which so many violations were allowed. Instead, the official side went another way: a new metropolitan was elected, his enthronement is being prepared for June 11, and Tychikos himself was asked to leave the premises where he lived on the territory of the Paphos Metropolis.
In parallel, accusations began to sound that behind Tychikos stands some group (literally - "clique") from Thessaloniki, connected with the "non-commemorating" or "separated" (those who stopped commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Ieronymos of Greece because of ecumenism). Archbishop George, speaking on ANT1, stated that with the election of a new metropolitan, peace allegedly returns to Paphos, and called the protests that gathered several thousand people unserious. He also said that many critics of the actions of the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus are not from Cyprus themselves, but from abroad, and mentioned a "group from Thessaloniki that shamelessly scolds everyone and everything."
Such a technique, unfortunately, is well known from church conflicts: instead of answering on the merits (where is the clear accusation, where are the case materials, where is full defense, where is the canonical trial), attention is diverted to some persons who influence the situation "from outside." For us, in our Ukrainian realities, this is painfully familiar - instead of observing the country's Constitution, we constantly hear about "Moscow influence" that "justifies" the persecution of the Church.
On the other hand, even if some harsh voices from Greece are indeed sounding, this does not cancel the main question: was Metropolitan Tychikos himself judged fairly?
Note that the metropolitan's lawyers sharply rejected the accusation that he is influenced by some "clique." In a press release published on June 2, it is stated that the bishop was not incited by anyone, did not support anyone in actions against the Church and did not participate in any plan of "church coup" in the Paphos Metropolis.
Moreover, the lawyers redirected the question back to the accusers: if the official side speaks of influence from Greece, then why, according to the defense's version, was it precisely a letter from Greece - a document from the Ministry of Education - that was used by Archbishop George as evidence against Metropolitan Tychikos, but was not provided to the accused metropolitan himself? Doesn't this fact testify that Archbishop George himself was subjected to "influence from outside"?
Why the Athens prosecutor's order could be a turning point
One of the most important new elements of the case is the order of the Athens prosecutor's office of May 20, 2026, which obliged the Ministry of Education, Religions and Sports of Greece to provide the requested package of documents on the case of the Metropolitan of Paphos.
This concerns a document that, according to Tychikos' lawyers' version, relates to the Ministry of Education of Greece. The defense claims that this document was used by Archbishop George as "evidence" in the accusatory line against the metropolitan, however Tychikos himself did not receive the opportunity to familiarize himself with it and respond on the merits.
If this is confirmed, the situation will acquire an extremely serious character. In any fair trial, the accused must know not only the general formulations of accusations, but also the evidence on which they are based. One cannot condemn a person based on a document he has not seen. Even more so, one cannot act this way in the Church, where the trial must be not only lawful, but also spiritually pure.
This is precisely why the demand to disclose the document is not a technical detail. This is the essence of the question of justice. If the document was used as part of accusatory material, it must be presented. If it was not presented, the trial cannot be considered complete. If there is no document or it does not contain what was attributed to it, then the entire "construction" of the accusation, which is already "sewn with white thread," is called into question.
Eviction as a symbol: turning a pastor into an "obstacle"
Note that after the election of Archimandrite Gregory, the dispute also moved into a domestic, almost humiliating plane. Tychikos was sent a letter demanding that he leave the room where he lived on the territory of the Paphos Metropolis. First they tried to deliver the letter personally, then sent it via Viber.
On June 4, the metropolitan was evicted, and the process took place under conditions of strong pressure and intimidation. The day before, throughout June 3, a significant number of police officers gathered around the metropolis buildings. Archbishop George of Cyprus had previously publicly stated that he was ready to resort to police assistance to expel Tychikos from church buildings.
But here the entire tragedy of the situation is revealed. A person who served Paphos for a quarter of a century is now perceived as an organizational obstacle to the enthronement of the "new metropolitan." Even if we set aside the legal aspect, pastorally this looks extremely painful. The Church cannot heal wounds with such methods.
A blow to the authority of the Church of Cyprus
Perhaps the most deplorable outcome of this entire situation is that Metropolitan Tychikos' case has long ceased to be an internal dispute of a narrow circle of hierarchs. It has turned into a public scandal that undermines trust in church authority in general.
The most vivid testimony of how this situation is perceived in society can be a video in which journalists talk about the eviction of Metropolitan Tychikos, about the actions of the church leadership of the Church of Cyprus and generally evaluate everything that is happening.
One of the fragments sounds particularly heavy:
"You know, I don't know how long this whole story will drag on in general with people who... how to call them... are clergy. I don't know how far this will go and what their holiness consists of, so to speak, but at some point we will have to look into our souls and evaluate how close each of us is to God. Because what is happening with the Church goes too far. The question of where we are and where church figures are in relation to God, and how theologically justified everything they do and say is - this is a big question."
These words are important because they show that even secular observers feel the discrepancy between the language of church authority and the spirit of the Gospel. When a case arises around a hierarch consisting of documents that no one has seen, of unclear accusations, of pressure, of suspicions of connections with some "cliques," of threats of new punishments and attempts at eviction, society sees not the Church of the Living God, but an ordinary administrative system that fights with a person.
And this strikes at the Church. It strikes at its mission. It strikes at the trust of simple believers. It strikes not because Tychikos defends himself, but because he, apparently, was never wanted to be heard on the merits. The Church is strong not when it knows how to quickly suppress uncomfortable questions, but when it is not afraid of truth. After all, the most terrible thing is when the believing people begin to think that the Church can be not the pillar and ground of Truth, but only a structure pursuing personal interests.
