The Office of Legal Representation of the (former) Metropolitan of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, upon His instruction, issued a document constituting an extensive response to the publication on the website philenews.com, in which the Audit Department of the Archbishopric of Cyprus reacted to the statements of Metropolitan Tychikos' lawyer concerning loans. The Metropolitan's side emphasizes that it never disputed the appropriateness of obtaining loans, but raises issues regarding their legality—and primarily regarding the high interest rate (approximately 6–6.5%) of the loan which the Archbishopric concluded for the repayment of the old debt of the Metropolis of Paphos (approximately €3,242,899) and for which two large properties of the Metropolis were mortgaged. In conclusion, the document poses five crucial questions regarding the circumstances of the dethroning of Metropolitan Tychikos from the Metropolitan Throne of Paphos in May 2025, which is characterized as a flagrant violation of natural and ecclesiastical justice.
PRESS RELEASE H 08.06.2026
Extensive response prompted by the publication
-No reference from the Audit Department of the Archbishopric and/or the Archbishop concerning the amount of the loan's interest rate-
First of all, the responsive statements on the part of the Audit Department of the Archbishopric in the above publication are not specified. The statements regarding loans by the lawyer of the Metropolitan (former) of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, are not his personal statements, but express the judgments and raise the questions of his own Principal, Metropolitan Tychikos, as the competent authority ratione materiae during the disputed period, on the issues in question.
In the references of Metropolitan Tychikos or his representatives, upon His instruction, there was no judgment on the appropriateness of obtaining loans, since, moreover, it was mentioned that there were loans during previous administrative administrations, particularly of the Predecessor of the then Metropolitan of Paphos, and now Archbishop, His Beatitude George, but issues of legality were raised.
Regarding the loan to which the Audit Department of the Archbishopric refers, the facts as declared, and as remembered by Metropolitan (former) of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, are as follows:
For a pre-existing debt of the Metropolis of Paphos to a Bank of a total amount of around €3,242,899, plus interest and other charges, as it increased due to the fact that the Holy Metropolis of Paphos could not pay a final installment to the Bank on 31.12.2021 (before the election of His Eminence Tychikos as Metropolitan of Paphos), payment was arranged to be made in December 2023 to avoid further financial consequences for the Metropolis of Paphos.
For the repayment of this debt, there was initially the promise of the Archbishop of Cyprus, His Beatitude George, as Metropolitan of Paphos, that if he were elected Archbishop, the Archbishopric would give 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 Tychikos states, both to him personally and to employees of the Metropolis of Paphos.
After the election of the Metropolitan of Paphos as Archbishop, and the issue that arose with the Relic of the Apostle Paul, the Archbishop reportedly said then to Metropolitan of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, "if you want me to pay the loan, you will accept the Relic, and you will do whatever I tell you."
Subsequently, to repay the debt, because it was said by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric to the Archbishop that if the debt is not paid the Metropolis will "close," in the sense that it will 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 a written agreement with the Metropolis of Paphos (which was drafted by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric) so that with the loan amount 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 a debtor. As a guarantee for concluding the loan with the new Bank with which the Archbishopric contracted and for securing the loan repayment from the Metropolis of Paphos to the (intermediary) Archbishopric which would pay off the loan to the Bank with which it contracted, (2) large estates of the Metropolis of Paphos worth approximately five and a half million euros at the time, and much more today, were placed under mortgage in favor of the Archbishopric.
Beyond this, an interest rate of around 6 or 6.5% was agreed for this new loan between the Archbishopric and the Bank of its choice. Metropolitan Tychikos recalls that the accountant of the Metropolis of Paphos had mentioned then that this loan with such an interest rate was usurious due to its amount, in relation to the prevailing rate of the time which ranged between 3.5% - 4.5%, so the question was and still is raised why another Bank could not be selected that would require a lower interest rate, considering also the mortgaging of significant properties of the Metropolis of Paphos, which had been agreed to be transferred by the Metropolis of Paphos to the Archbishopric in case of difficulty in debt repayment. The properties of the Metropolis of Paphos to be mortgaged were also selected by the Audit Department of the Archbishopric. Additionally, a condition was set for the loan to be repaid with interest from the Metropolis of Paphos to the Archbishopric within five years, that is, within a short period of time.
Metropolitan of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, expressed his concern then both regarding the interest rate and regarding the short repayment period of the loan, considering the possible loss of the mortgaged property of the Metropolis. But as a new Metropolitan facing an overwhelming debt that he inherited, he did not have many choices.
The reference in the statements of the representative of Metropolitan Tychikos concerned the high interest rate of this loan, either to the new Bank or to the Archbishopric (this is posed as a question), and not the very existence of loans, the appropriateness of which concerns the Church, but their legality 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 Tychikos, the Audit Department of the Archbishopric gives no answer, but on the contrary invokes "allegations" of supposedly "unscrupulous, harmful falsehoods, and defamatory references" on the part of Metropolitan Tychikos and his representative, which do not exist, as explained above.
And ultimately, major questions reasonably arise, such as:
What ultimately was the Archbishopric's assistance in the specific issue of the loans?
Why such haste in changing the Metropolitan of Paphos in view of all these financial pending matters and arrangements that Metropolitan Tychikos had begun to tackle and put in order?
Why, within a period of at most two months from when Metropolitan Tychikos publicly stated that he would appoint chartered accountants to audit the administrations of the Saint George Hotel and Minthis Hills units with the company Pafilia, regarding their contractual obligations toward the Metropolis of Paphos, did the Archbishop cause the removal of Metropolitan Tychikos from the Metropolitan Throne of Paphos in May 2025?
Why, as soon as the Archbishop assumed the position 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 regarding a conspiracy with the possibility of financial exchanges between the Archbishop and the Mayor of Paphos for the purpose of dethroning Metropolitan of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, not yet been investigated?
All of the above, systematically interpreted, and viewed in light of the nearly speed-of-light procedure not only of dethroning, not only of suspension, but also of "threatening" expulsion of Metropolitan Tychikos from the premises of the Metropolis of Paphos, with authority that only a Prosecutor or Court could assume, without a fair trial having preceded, without even formal compliance, for appearances' sake, with the provisions of the Constitutional Charter of the Church of Cyprus and the relevant Holy Canons, with immediate execution of all decisions of the Church of Cyprus without even awaiting their ratification by the Ecumenical Patriarchate [Which, although it recognized the procedural nullities, did not rise to the occasion by recommending repetition of the procedure, as it did in the past in the appeal of another Metropolitan], can be considered nothing but coincidence, but on the contrary constitute a glaring, violent and brutal violation of the principles of natural and ecclesiastical justice, which no subsequent "electoral" procedure heals, and into which justice must penetrate not for anyone's personal benefit, but for Justice itself and respect for the dignity of the Person.
From the Office of Legal Representation of His All-Holiness Metropolitan (former) of Paphos, His Eminence Tychikos, upon His Instruction.