Let's Go To The Video Tape...

In case you didn't know, the General Assembly of May 21 was video taped. If you were one of the many who spoke that evening, your words are forever memorialized on tape. Now there isn't anything wrong with a meeting being either video or audio taped. It can certainly add to accuracy when our memories fail or insure that action is taken on items discussed.

It would have certainly been helpful though, had the gathering been told there was a video camera in the room taping the proceedings. It just seems fair and proper to make such an announcement informing those present not only that taping would take place but also the purpose of the taping. Instead, those in attendance who did not know that the meeting was taped are left in the dark and those who saw the taping take place are left to draw their own conclusions as to why.

Consequently conspiracy theories run amok: "It's so the Metropolitan can see what we are doing..." "They want to know who the troublemakers are..." "They are trying to see who else they can excommunicate..." "What are they going to do with the tape?" A simple explanation at the beginning of the meeting letting the assembly know would have gone a long way. Then again, secrecy and clandestine behavior have been the standard so why would anyone expect any kind of courtesy? "Send your stewardship, shut your mouths and don't ask questions, we've got everything under control." How much longer do we sit back and take it?

A Brief History for Those Who Would Split Our Community, cont'd....

It is quite CLEAR in the letter imaged in this post, taken in conjunction with the document in our previous post, that our Bishop, now Metropolitan, clearly understood the nature of character of this Greek Orthodox community and ACKNOWLEDGED it in his letter to then-Proistamenos, Fr. John Kaloudis.

A Brief History for Those Who Would Split Our Community...

It was made known to TOCB recently that certain parishioners are actively exploring the possibility of breaking up the Greek Orthodox community in Salt Lake City by attempting to make Prophet Elias its own entity under its own board. To these folks we would like to provide a couple of documents that clearly explain the unquestionable and UNANIMOUS intent of our parents and grandparents when they built Prophet Elias. For those of us who have the names of our parents and grandparents on the windows and cornerstones of the church, this is not negotiable. In the unforgetable words of the Greeks in World War II - OXI!

Does the Proistameno Need to Control Us ?

For the last few months we have been treated to the following bromide in the weekly Sunday bulletin, aka “The Word.”

“Fr. Michael and Fr. Matthew are the only two Clergy who are assigned to the Parish to care for the Spiritual Need of the Parishioners.”

As you all know English is not my native language, so I apologize if I am misreading the emphasis of the bold language above. The Proistameno is correct in saying that “Fr. Michael and Fr. Matthew are the only two Clergy who are assigned [emphasis added] to the Parish .... .” The Proistameno is wrong though to dictate that the two assigned priests are the only priests who can minister to and/or “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” The parishioner who requests spiritual solace and guidance has the right to feel comfortable with the right clergyman of his or her own choice.

The edict that only the two assigned priests can “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners” is ill-timed, illogical, and divisive. It is not supported by any Canon of our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not supported by any religious writing of any of the Fathers of our Church. We do not know if it is espoused or supported by the Metropolitan of this Metropolis or by the Archdiocese.

The Proistameno’s arrogance in thinking that the mere fact of his “assignment” to this community by the Metropolitan, invests him with an emperor’s robes is not consistent with principles of humility. Other faiths promote infallibility. Our faith does not. Our clergy wears liturgical vestments and not imperial robes.

What of the four other priests that we presently have in this community? Why are the four other clergy NOT allowed to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners?” Why are the parishioners prevented and deprived from an opportunity to have their spiritual needs met by any other duly ordained clergyman? Why are the parishioners discouraged from developing relationships with other duly ordained clergymen in our community? Why do the parishioners of our community need to be dictated to by the Proistameno as to who their spiritual father ought to be? This is a highly personal matter. WHY?

The prohibition does not even make sense when viewed within the framework of the actual practice allowed by this Proistameno. Why then, whenever any one of the below listed clergymen is serving in Church on any given Sunday, is he allowed to offer Communion? And yet, this same clergyman is otherwise prohibited by this same Proistameno “to care for the [other] Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” Does this make sense?

Why, prior to this Proistameno’s arrival in our community were all Orthodox Clergyman allowed to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the parishioners?” New Rules? WHY? What changed? What made other spiritual needs besides those administered in church now restricted acts that must fall under the purview of this Proistameno?

For some time now, our community has been fortunate to have available to it four additional clergymen.

Fr. George Politis has been ministering to the parishioners’ spiritual needs for well over 35 years during the most critical times of our community’s existence. Why is he not capable any longer to care for a parishioner’s spiritual needs if asked? Why is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno? A lot of us have built relationships of trust, confidence, and love with Father George during the last 40 years. Fr. George has ministered and helped innumerable parishioners with issues that faced them. He offered the Sacraments to parishioners according to their needs. Father George has been instrumental in serving, and thus saving, the Greek School program during the period that he served in this community. He has served this community with distinction, humility, and faith. Fr. George is a most cherished clergyman in this community. How does a newcomer decide that Fr. George may not help with the Spiritual Needs of this community? And WHY?

Fr. Makarios also grew up in the community and has been ministering to the community's spiritual needs ever since he came back from his monastic life. Why is he not capable any longer to care for our parishioners’ spiritual needs? WHY is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

Fr. Koucos grew up in this community and has been ministering to our community ever since his ordination. The Metropolitan sends him to other communities to minister for God. He takes care of other parishes’ spiritual needs. Why is he not capable to care for our parishioners’ spiritual needs? WHY is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

Fr. Mario Giannopoulos also grew up in Salt Lake City and has been currently residing in our Parish. Why can he not minister to our parishioners' spiritual needs if asked? WHY is he being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

During this Proistameno’s frequent absences from our Parish, he calls upon the above-named clergy often to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” Are they only capable “to care of our Spiritual Needs” when a parishioner seeks spiritual solace from one of them specifically, but only when the Proistameno is not in town? WHY does this Proistameno think that these clergymen may not minister to parishioners’ spiritual needs, except only as he sees fit? It just does not make any sense, does it?

What if a parishioner were to ask one of the "non-assigned" clergy to care for his or her spiritual needs? Does this parishioner then commit a sin? Is the parishioner who so acts subject to sanctions? Is the clergyman subject to sanctions? Is the Proistameno’s edict sanctioned by the Metropolitan? Is the Proistameno’s edict provided for under Canon Law?

Why does the Proistameno feel that he needs to be so deeply in control? We do not need a policy that promotes control to this degree. We do not need a policy that fosters fear. We do not need policies that are antithetical to good common sense. The Proistameno should rethink his announced policy and rescind it. If he chooses not to do so, perhaps he should seek another community that wants to take advantage of his many talents.

This community deserves humble priests who WANT to promote good will and who will work cooperatively with all parishioners and clergy. This community needs a bridge builder, a unifying force, as its Proistameno, and not a divider.

If you feel as I do, or if you have other thoughts on the subject, I invite you to submit your thoughts on the comment link below this article.

Thank you.

Nick Colessides

An Open Letter to the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake Parishioners

Dear Fellow Parishioners,

I am the Parish Council member whom the Proistamenos recommended to be removed from the Parish Council of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake.

I received my dismissal letter (dated February 28, 2007) from the Metropolitan on Monday March 5, 2007, via overnight courier. The Proistamenos reported from the pulpit on Sunday March 11, 2007, that the matter of my removal was "between the board member and the Metropolitan." In the interest of full disclosure and fairness the Proistamenos should have informed the Parishioners, and the member being removed, that the Proistameno initiated the removal proceedings. He did not, ... Why? Was it a lapse of memory?

We do not know if the Proistamenos followed the dictates of the applicable UPRs! We do not know if this Proistamenos wrote a letter as per Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5B of the UPRs!

Did this Proistamenos make a recommendation to the Metropolitan in writing?

What is the date of the written recommendation?

Which of the 5 reasons stated in the UPRs was used by the Proistamenos, in making his recommendations for my dismissal?

Is it fair that the Proistameno did not make the removal recommendation letter available to me, the person whom he was recommending to be removed?

The Metropolitan acting on the Proistamenos' recommendation pronounced me as having exhibited un-Christian behavior. The Metropolitan imposed temporal and ecclesiastical sanctions. Without a hearing.

Is it fair that no hearing was given to me prior to my removal from the Parish Council?

Is it fair that the removal recommendation letter was not made available to the entire Parish?

If the Parishioners, through the election process voted me in, are they not entitled to know the content of the removal recommendation letter?

Transparency and fairness demand that this Proistameno come clean on all of these questions.

I am in total agreement with the author of the article "How to Get Removed From The Parish Council" posted earlier today on this blog.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article cited above are very critical to the thought processes.

We cannot afford to have the voice of the Parishioners extinguished because of this Proistamenos’ erratic thinking. He appears to be acting contrary to the best interests of the Parish to which he was assigned. This Parish’s Proistameno must be a unifying force at all times. Our Parish’s survival dictates it. Our Parish’s survival demands it.

This Proistamenos believes that he can govern with fear. Governance by fear and retribution is not consistent with Christian love. Governance by fear has no place in our 102 year-old Parish.

This Parish needs a Proistameno who can minister to the needs of the entire Parish. Being selective is a non sequitur. All of the Parishioners attending church services at either Holy Trinity or Prophet Elias have the same or similar needs. This Parish does not need an isolationist Proistameno. This Parish needs governance with God's love and reason. This Parish needs a Proistameno who is committed to minister to the Parish’s Christian needs. This Parish needs a Proistameno who can initiate and implement programs to attract and keep within our Orthodox faith, all of our people; and, especially our young people aged 19 through 35.

This Parish does not need to be scared into obedience. This Parish must be motivated by the Proistameno, by his willingness to listen; by his capacity to love; and his ability to act for the betterment of the entire community. This Parish does not need a Proistameno who is punitive. Christ is not punitive. This Parish needs a Proistameno whose only motive is Christian love; who acts with honesty, fairness, and integrity; who is fully transparent for the public good. A Proistameno who is capable of ministering to the entire Parish without equivocation or reservation.

This issue is not about me. This issue is about whom do we have as a Proistameno. What did the Proistameno do to unite this Parish? What can the Proistameno do to unite this Parish? What does this Proistameno do, so that he can be in tune with the needs of the Parish? Is this Proistameno willing to expend the time and effort to heal and improve his relationship with all of the parishioners of this Parish? Only he can provide us with the answer!

Best regards to everybody for a great Protomayia.

Nick J. Colessides

How To Get Removed From The Parish Council

Recently a member of the parish council of the Holy Trinity Church in Dallas was removed from office for "violating his affirmation of office" which, coincidentally was the same charge levied against a member of our own parish council causing his ouster. It would appear on the surface that the responsibility of removing parish council members rests solely with the Metropolitan of each respective Metropolis. Taking a closer look, we can clearly see that the Metropolitan plays a key role but certainly does not act alone.

The Uniform Parish Regulations, or UPR's as they are commonly referred to and frequently quoted when it suits the needs of a particular side, disseminate the process of how one goes about getting oneself removed from a parish council. Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5A of the 2005 edition we find: "Removal from the Parish Council shall be considered when a member: (1) is not or has ceased to be loyal to the doctrines, canons, worship, disciplines, customs or practices of the Church (2) is in violation of these Regulations or Hierarchical Encyclicals of the Archdiocese (3) does not recognize the duly constituted ecclesiastical authorities of the Metropolis or Archdiocese (4) is guilty of a serious moral transgression or (5) has violated his or her affirmation of office." Should one decide to run for the parish council, be elected and strive to get themselves removed, these are the five ways one can accomplish that goal.

Should a member of the parish council succeed at meeting one of these five requirements, how does the Metropolitan come to the conclusion that removal is necessary? These same UPR's answer that question in Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5B: "In the event that the Priest believes that the removal of a Parish Council member is required for one of the reasons required in subsections (1) one through (5) listed above, the Priest shall submit his recommendation, in writing, for the removal of the member to the respective Hierarch."

The process listed above is how our Archdiocese has directed its parishes to conduct matters regarding the removal of members of Parish Councils. In the case of the removal of a member of our Parish Council, it would stand to reason that the Metropolitan had help in making his decision. It appears that, if a member of the Parish Council of our community chooses to think for themselves and their thinking isn't in line with the wishes of the Priest their tenure will be short lived. The 'if you don't agree with me, I will see that you get fired' mentality that exists here leaves much to be desired.

Instead of working together for the betterment of our church in this community we have a situation where 'I am in charge and you are here to assist me' rules. There are no common goals and there is no common agenda for the betterment of the community and its members. The Metropolitan makes the final decision but not without the help of the Priest he has assigned. The voice of the people is extinguished and the business as usual thinking reigns.

Our situation here, as well as the situation in Dallas, could have been handled by sitting down with those who have allegedly "violated their affirmation of office" and discussing the issues at hand. It seems that as reasonable adults any discrepancies could have been ironed out for the betterment of the church and those elected by the people could continue to do the people's work. Instead, we make an example of one to keep the others in line.

The Metropolitan made the final decision but he did have help along the way.