When the Advertised Lions of Orthodoxy Prove to be Chameleons of Ecumenism

June 23, 2025

 

The confession of Faith of Bishop [Metropolitan] Tychikos [of Paphos], which he sent to the Holy Synod of Cyprus, was circulated on ecclesiastical blogs. The content did not surprise us, because in previous articles we had outlined the personality of this particular bishop and questioned, with evidence, his Orthodox mindset, despite the fact that many anti-ecumenists and those who had walled themselves off had proclaimed him a new Mark of Ephesus (!!!).

We had even suggested that, instead of using the "appeal," he should send to the Holy Synod an extensive excerpt from the confession of faith that he read at his ordination and nothing else. If this response were not accepted, then he should present a libellus of faith against Ecumenism, in order to prove and proclaim his Orthodox mindset. Unfortunately, however, the events confirmed what we believed, proving through the confession of faith that this particular bishop is becoming a Trojan horse of Ecumenism.

By reading the text of the confession, one realizes that the bishop falls into unprecedented contradictions.

On the one hand, he confesses that he respects the Orthodox teaching, as it has been formed on the basis of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Fathers of the Church; on the other hand, he renounces the ecclesiastical practice of walling off, which has been established by the 31st Apostolic Canon and other Canons of Ecumenical Councils and is taught to us by the life and conduct of the confessor Saints (e.g., St. Theodore the Studite, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, etc.).

The bishop, who considers Papism a heresy and refuses to receive the skull of the Apostle Paul because it would be transferred from the Vatican, does he not see that we are in the final stretch toward union with the Papists???

Neither the common prayers with the Papists bother him, nor the recognition of Papism and other heresies as Churches bothers him, nor the mixed marriages, nor the Schism due to the Ukrainian issue, nor the new ecclesiology defined by the Kolymbari Council, which has no relation whatsoever to Orthodox Ecclesiology and the consensus Patrum. Everything is rosy and beautiful. The only thing that concerns him is to confirm that he bends the knee in submission to the Ecumenist Synod to which he belongs, disregarding obedience to the timeless teaching of the Orthodox Fathers and of Holy Tradition. Shame and shame again!!!!!!!

However, there are also certain other points in the text of the confession that we must comment on.

 As an opponent of the practice of canonical walling off, he writes the following:

5. I declare again and many times, explicitly and categorically, that all the accusations are unfounded, but collapse like a house of cards, and specifically regarding the accusation of walling off, about which much is being said, I will indicatively mention five cases:

a) August 2023: I placed under suspension a priest of the Metropolis of Paphos, who proceeded to wall himself off, and ultimately the competent ecclesiastical court of the Holy Synod proceeded with his deposition.

b) February 13, 2024: I, as Metropolitan of Paphos, communicated the announcement of the Holy Synod and drew attention to the “Athonite Elder Savvas Lavriotis.”

c) May 23, 2024: I issued an announcement, following my communication with the Holy Metropolis of Xanthi, concerning the self-styled “Gerontissa Anna,” who was circulating within the Metropolis of Paphos without canonical permission and was giving talks in houses.

d) May 10, 2025: I informed in writing the priests of the Metropolis of Paphos about archimandrites who do not have a blessing to perform sacred services, as they do not belong to any local Church and do not recognize any Orthodox bishop.

The insidious characteristic of the above excerpt lies in the following:

“Gerontissa Anna” and the monk Elder Savvas Lavriotis have significant differences with regard to their ecclesiological principles and practices. Gerontissa A. joined a G.O.C. Synod (the Synod of Philotheos K[ynigalakis of Liti and Rendini]) after a dispute with the Metropolis of Xanthi over property matters of her Hesychasterion, whereas Elder Savvas is in a state of walling off, without having joined a G.O.C. Synod. The simultaneous mention of these two different cases, along with that of the walled-off Cypriot priest, is due to the fact that Bishop Tychikos wants to accuse those who have walled off of being a Schism, with all that this implies.

Those who are interested in the case of Gerontissa Anna, we refer them to the following addresses.

1. https://www.ethnos.gr/greece/article/36435/xanthhierospolemosgiathaymatakiantikanonikoysklhrikoys

2. https://www.thraki.com.gr/den-isychazei-to-isychastirio-toy-geraka

For Elder Savvas Lavriotis, those interested may also find information at the address: https://www.agioritespateres.com/category/epistoles/ and in the section LETTERS.

Also, in the 4th paragraph of the announcement that precedes the confession, the following is written:

Concerning the recent case “of Thessaloniki,” the priest, a father of many children, originally from Agia Marina of Paphos, was ordained to serve permanently in the Metropolis of Paphos. He was appointed for a long period as the presiding priest in a large community and always commemorated my name as metropolitan during the holy services he performed in Paphos. For the completion of a postgraduate program, he was granted a license for free liturgical service, just as I myself had received during my studies in London from the then Metropolitan of Paphos and current Beatitude kyr George. It was not possible for me to have responsibility for or knowledge of his actions outside the boundaries of my Metropolis.

However, there are facts that the Metropolitan conceals, and for this reason we ask again the following:

1. Which spiritual father gave the testimonial for the ordination of Fr. D.S. [Dimos Serkelidis]? Was he informed by the spiritual father and by the then lay candidate for ordination about his walling off (as a layman) from the Metropolitan of Neapolis?

The license for free liturgical service granted to Fr. D.S. pertains to the unobstructed exercise of the priesthood. With this specific license, the bishop confirms that Fr. D.S. may celebrate the divine services, but when he is in another Metropolis or in a Metropolis of another autocephalous Church and serves liturgically, he may do so ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE LOCAL METROPOLITAN (unless he is walled off). Did Bishop Tychikos verify how this license for free liturgical service is being applied by his particular clergyman? Is there relevant correspondence on the matter? When Bishop Tychikos was serving as an Archimandrite in a parish of the Metropolis of Thessaloniki (during his studies), was this done without the permission of the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki?

According to what has been published since September 2024, the matter of Fr. D.S. was raised Synodically. Did he not come into contact with the said priest in order to examine him? What kind of episcopal responsibility is expressed by the statement: “It was not possible for me to have responsibility for or knowledge of his (Fr. D.S.’s) actions outside the boundaries of my Metropolis”?

Perhaps Bishop Tychikos and Fr. T[heodoros] Zisis should tell us what they had agreed upon regarding Fr. D.S., so that we may justify the passionate defense of the bishop both by Fr. Theodoros and by Fr. D.S. (We assert—and await to be refuted—that there were secret arrangements, possibly due to obligations of the bishop for assistance with his studies at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki).

We remind, finally, the following:

The inspiration of a Council does not depend on the fact that it is composed of bishops with omophoria. As the ever-memorable Father John Romanides used to say, "It is not the existence of the bishop that is the guarantee that a Council is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Nor does the Grace of the Episcopacy lead the Church 'into all truth.'" In other words, a Council may be "legitimate," but not holy. It may be composed of bishops, but be spiritually empty, when it does not dogmatize correctly and is not made up of God-bearing men. (Note: who, many times, from lions become chameleons.)

…If some are bothered by the term "walling off," perhaps they should look in the mirror. Because the first to wall themselves off – from the faith, from the patristic line, from the flock – are often the very hierarchs who today hasten to condemn those who grieve for it. (orthodoxia-ellhnismos).

The ever-memorable I. Kornarakis wrote years ago: “…The fundamental problem of our existence is to what extent our life is true in Christ Jesus. Christ, the supremely unsurpassable Truth, obliges us—if we wish to ‘walk after Him’—to be truthful in all things. When we do not do this, 'we are playing where play is not permitted,' at the table of the evangelical truths."

The dark schemes, the covering of the distortion of the Orthodox faith with pseudo-confessions of faith, are a HUBRIS against the struggle of Orthodox Confession, and ecclesiastical Economy (which has a beginning and an end) constitutes the Trojan horse of Ecumenism and the tombstone of canonical walling off.

"There is no compromise in matters of the Faith!" (Saint Mark of Ephesus).

SHAME, ON YOU [Bishop Tychikos]!!!! SHAME!!!! SHAME!!!!!

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/06/blog-post_62.html