Archbishop Georgios of Cyprus will allow a period of approximately ten days for his meeting with Tychikos to take place, making it clear that, if there is no response, the Holy Synod will reconvene to examine the issue and proceed with the necessary decisions.
The Church of Cyprus cannot remain in a state of prolonged uncertainty, he said, emphasizing that even a bishop who has been suspended remains subject to the Synod and is accountable to it.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Speaking to reporters after the memorial service for Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus and when asked about the meeting he is expected to have with Tychikos, Archbishop George revealed that the request for the meeting originally came from Tychikos, shortly before the Holy Synod was convened.
READ ALSO: Concerns over schismatics in Paphos: Why Tychikos was called to explain himself, and what will happen with the meeting with George
“He himself requested, on the eve of the Holy Synod’s convening, through his own people, that he wanted to see me, and I gladly agreed to meet with him to put an end to this matter,” he said.
However, as he explained, when Tychikos was in Cyprus, he did not show the same eagerness to hold the meeting. According to the Archbishop, although his office had informed him of this, there was no response.
“When he arrived, he did not seem immediately willing to see me; although my office told me they had notified him, he did not respond at all. That is why we are waiting for him to demonstrate this desire of his in practice,” he noted.
The Archbishop made it clear that he does not intend to leave the matter open indefinitely, emphasizing that a reasonable timeframe— approximately ten days, for the meeting to take place. After that, if there is no progress, the Holy Synod will convene to discuss the matter.
SEE ALSO: Unbearable pressure, humiliation, and ridicule: Here is Tychikos’s letter explaining why he did not attend the Holy Synod
“The Church cannot remain in this state of limbo,” he emphasized, noting that a bishop, even when suspended, has an institutional authority to which he must report, and that is the Holy Synod.
“No one can go about ‘doing as they please’ in Greece, in Cyprus, or anywhere else, without being accountable to anyone,” he stated.
Archbishop George reiterated that the issue is not a personal dispute, but rather a matter concerning the functioning and administration of the Church, with ultimate responsibility resting with the collective ecclesiastical authority.
When asked whether there is a possibility that developments on Tychikos’s part might be delayed, he replied that in such a case, the Holy Synod would be convened.
“The Holy Synod will convene,” he stated, emphasizing that “it is not one person who governs the Church, but the Synod.”
The Archbishop explained that the Holy Synod did not discuss the matter during its recent session, as Tychikos’s request for a meeting had been made beforehand. Therefore, it now remains to be seen whether this request will be granted, so that the next steps can be determined.
The Archbishop then referred to the conditions under which a settlement might be reached and a position within the Holy Archdiocese might be granted to Tychikos.
When asked whether, in the event of an agreement between the two sides, he would be given a place to carry out his duties, Archbishop George referred to specific conditions, which, as he said, have already been set by the Church.
According to him, the key requirement is for Tychikos to renounce the doctrines and positions which, as he noted, he appears to espouse and which concern both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy and Great Council of Crete.
In particular, the Archbishop referred to the accusations of heresy against the Patriarch, as well as his rejection of the Holy and Great Council of Crete, emphasizing that there must be a clear repudiation of these positions.
As he explained, this must be done through an official declaration, a “libellus,” in the ecclesiastical sense of the term.
At the same time, he made it a prerequisite that the truth be restored regarding the allegations that had been made concerning financial irregularities in the Metropolis.
“We said that, if he renounces those beliefs he appears to espouse, if he renounces those doctrines that accuse the Patriarch of being a heretic, that they do not accept the Great and Holy Council of Crete, if he accepts these through a proclamation, a libel, as it is called, if he states that the accusations against us—that we had committed major financial irregularities in the Metropolis—are false, if he refutes them, and if he restores the whole truth, then everything the Synod said about him—that he has a place in the Holy Archdiocese—will stand,” he said.
With this specific statement, the Archbishop outlined the framework within which there could be a way forward for Tychikos, linking any resolution to the official clarification of his positions and the rectification of whatever, according to him, has caused the current conflict.
Archbishop George also referred to earlier reports regarding Tychikos’s situation and his inability to travel to Cyprus.
When asked about the fact that Tychikos had ultimately returned to Cyprus but declined to answer a reporter’s questions regarding whether he would meet with the Archbishop, His Beatitude revealed that a relevant notification had been sent via fax beforehand.
As he stated, immediately after the conclusion of the Holy Synod’s meeting on Tuesday, at approximately 3:00 p.m., a fax was received stating that Tychikos could not travel to Cyprus, as he was ill and had been advised not to visit places where he might experience emotional distress.
“As soon as we finished the meeting on Tuesday around 3:00 p.m., we received a fax stating that he could not come to Cyprus because he was unable to travel, was ill, and had been told not to go to places where he would suffer emotional distress,” he said.
He then wondered how it ultimately became possible for him to travel, given that this information had been provided beforehand.
The Archbishop reiterated that the request for a meeting had been submitted by Tychikos’s side and that the Church now expects a corresponding concrete response.
Meanwhile, the Archbishop was also asked to comment on the possibility of creating a new ecclesiastical structure in Cyprus, in light of developments surrounding Tychikos and reports of schismatic movements.
His Beatitude appeared reassuring, expressing the view that the conditions for the creation of another Church in Cyprus do not exist.
“I do not believe there is any possibility of a Church being established here,” he said, explaining that such efforts are more likely to find fertile ground in parts of Africa.
As he described, in some cases small places of worship are established, which are then converted into churches, while there may be instances of clergy moving from the canonical Church to schismatic groups, even in exchange for financial inducements.
In contrast, according to the Archbishop, the situation in Cyprus is different, as the churches are the property of the Cypriot people and the clergy are aware of their responsibility.
“In Cyprus, nothing of the sort exists. The churches belong to our people; our priests have a sense of the gravity of the situation and are fully aware of the responsibility they bear,” he noted.
In conclusion, he argued that such a development is not expected to occur in Cyprus, urging people not to attach undue importance to a possibility that, in his assessment, does not exist in practice.
The Archbishop also spoke at length on the issue of religious ceremonies reportedly being held in private residences in Paphos by individuals connected to the case.
When asked how he characterizes the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in private homes, the Archbishop directly disputed that these are actual church services.
“First of all, these are not services; rather, just as a child might play in the yard and repeat the words a priest says, so do they,” he stated.
He then referred to the ecclesiastical status of the person allegedly conducting these services, claiming that he is a defrocked clergyman who, according to him, no longer possesses the grace of the priesthood.
The Archbishop appealed to those who follow these groups to realize, as he put it, that they are not participating in the canonical sacraments of the Church.
“When he is deprived of God’s grace, when he has been deposed, can he do anything?” he asked, adding that those who participate in such ceremonies do not receive the grace of the sacraments but, in his view, only burden their souls further.
When asked whether he knew the identity of the clergyman who is reportedly performing these specific ceremonies in private homes in Paphos, the Archbishop stated that he has been identified as Romanian and that he previously belonged to the Antiochian Church in Great Britain.
As he asserted, this clergyman has also been defrocked by the Church to which he previously belonged.
He reiterated his position that these specific ceremonies have no ecclesiastical validity, comparing them to the case of someone who repeats the words of a liturgy without having the status or authorization to administer the sacraments.
When asked whether Holy Communion is also administered in private homes, the Archbishop insisted that everything carried out in that context is invalid. Archbishop George finally made it clear that the matter cannot remain unresolved, emphasizing that decisions will be made by the competent collective body of the Church, the Holy Synod.
Source: CNA
