“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,

and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you:

but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,

but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28, KJV)


The word the Athenians used for their Assembly was Ekklesia, the same word used in the New Testament for Church
(and it is the greatest philological irony in all of Western history that this word,
which connoted equal participation in all deliberation by all members,
came to designate a kind of self-perpetuating, self-protective Spartan gerousia -
which would have seemed patent nonsense to Greek-speaking Christians of New Testament times,
who believed themselves to be equal members of their Assembly.)

- Thomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter




ΦΙΛΟΤΙΜΟ: THE GREEK SECRET


Tuesday, July 31, 2007

"Split Committee" Meets Again?

On Tuesday evening, July 31 our "split committee" met at Prophet Elias at the request of our parish council president. We find the meeting odd as at the last parish council meeting held on July 25, it was decided that this committee would be dissolved and the parish council would assume its duties. The question to be asked at this point is, was the calling of this meeting discussed with the members of the parish council or was this another unilateral decision made by our Proistameno and parish council president? From the information we have gathered, the latter is accurate.
If our parish council makes a decision like they did regarding this committee at their last meeting how is it their decision is overridden? As far as the members of the parish council are concerned, what is the status and function of this committee? Be that as it may, this committee did meet.
Yet to be received is a letter from the metropolitan stating he would agree to the decision of the community. A letter that should it be sent, in all probability none of us will ever see. Gone and forgotten in all this discussion is the edict from the general assembly in April 1968 outlining the procedure in discussing the splitting of the community. Not to be ignored is the total disgust of two members of this committee, regular attendees of Holy Trinity, who resigned.
It is clear that our Proistameno is driving this bus and our parish council president is riding shotgun. This bus is long gone and in spite of their demand for a seat on it, our parish council has been left behind standing in the rain. The behavior of our Proistameno and parish council president has far surpassed the absurd and borders total disdain for the members of the parish council and the people they are supposed to serve.
Is it too much to ask for clarification. How was this committee reconvened? What is its long term function? When the parish council makes a decision why do two people feel they can act independent of that decision? Since the position of the members of the parish council is unknown in this matter, isn't it about time you let the members of the community know where you stand? YOU ARE EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST A SPLIT!! In light of how things have transpired with this Proistameno apparently it is too much to ask for clarification. Truly sad.

ENDLESS LIES!!


Dear Parishioners,

Feast your eyes about our "Truth Averse" Proistameno in our community.

The language below is taken from the only document that the Archdiocese is recommending that Parish Councils may sign.

The Proistameno lied again when he said during the last Parish Council meeting that the form he recommended 3 years ago, came from and/or was mandated from the Archdiocese.

When do the lies stop???????

He should ask for re-assignment NOW !!!!!!!

I think that the Metropolitan should be made aware of the Proistameno's duplicity and lying.

This is the only recommended (not mandatory) Disclosure Statement that has been authorized and is recommended by the Archdiocese.

Best regards to everybody.

Nick J. Colessides

P.S. In a future blog I shall include the "Confidentiality Agreement" that the Proistamenos ordered everybody to sign. I shall find my copy that I refused to sign before I was removed from the Parish Council, and make it available for your review.

Disclosure Statement – Parish Council

For Members of the Parish Council of the Greek Orthodox Church of ______________________________ (“Council)

1. No member of the Council or of his/her immediate family shall derive any personal profit or gain, directly or indirectly, by reason of his/her participation with the organization.

2. Each individual shall disclose any personal interest which he or she may have in any
matter involving the Parish and shall refrain from participation in any decision on such matter.

3. Any member of the Council who is also an owner, officer, board member, committee
member, or staff member of a lender, contractor, vendor, or supplier of or to the Parish, shall identify his or her affiliation with such entity or entities.

4. Further, in connection with any Council action specifically directed to any such entity,
he/she shall not participate in the decision affecting that entity and the decision must be made and/or ratified by the Council.

5. Any member of the Council shall refrain from obtaining any list of Parishioners or
friends of the Parish for personal or private solicitation purposes at any time during the term of his/her affiliation without the prior consent of the Priest and the President of the Parish Council.

At this time, I am a director, officer, member, a committee member, consultant to, or employee of the following organizations:

Name of Entity Position/Title
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
If additional space needed, continue on reverse side.

This is to certify that I, except as described herein, am not now nor at any time during the past year have been:

A) A participant, directly or indirectly, in any arrangement, agreement, investment, or other activity with any lender, vendor, supplier, or other party doing business with the Parish which has resulted or could result in personal benefit to me.

B) A recipient, directly or indirectly, of any salary payments or loans or gifts of any kind or any free service or discounts or other fees from or on behalf of any person or organization engaged in any transaction with the Parish.
Any exceptions to A or B above are stated in the attachment hereto with a full description of the transactions and of the interest, whether direct or indirect, which I have (or have had during the past year) in the persons or organizations having transactions with the Parish.


Date:__________________,200__ Signature: ________________________________
Please Print Name:_____________________________


Parish Council Disclosure-Statement.8.18.05

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Congratulations to the Parish Council

The Parish Council took a step forward in the right direction.

It passed unanimously the recommendation by Nick Sefakis, a past president of our community. It accepted the 1969 General Assembly Resolution and shall conduct a poll, in writing, of our Parishioners, to decide the "splitting" issue.

Bravo and Congratulations. It is the right step toward having our community decide. It is the right step toward Taking Our Church Back!

Best wishes for a bright tomorrow,

Nick J. Colessides

PS - And to the Proistameno who thinks that the final decision is with the Archdiocese or the Metropolitan notice is hereby given that someone better read the Canons and tell us which one applies.

Author's Note: as reported by a parishioner present
at the July 25, 2007 Parish Council meeting.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

A Night To Be Proud Of

In our continuing effort to keep the community informed, we offer the following snippet of what transpired at the parish council meeting of July 25. Our Proistameno showed his true concern for his flock by attacking a young member of our community. We would initially ask our parish council if you condone the "Orthodox Christian manner" used by our Proistameno toward one of your fellow parishioners. If not, who of you stood up to defend this young man?

It should also be noted that TOCB writes "lies, garbage and misinformation." These are the sentiments of a member of the "split committee" who has yet to point out one lie or any misinformation that has appeared on this forum. As far as "garbage" is concerned, everything currently occurring in our community is "garbage" and we didn't start it.

A full report will soon follow as to the events of this sorry meeting. Please check back.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Lucille Kastanis Responds to Fr. Michael Regarding the P.E. Committee

Moderator's Note: Posted with the Kastanis Family's Permission

July 24, 2007

Dear Father Michael:

On behalf of myself and my family I felt it important to write this letter. I am extremely disappointed in your choices for the fact finding committee from Prophet Elias. These people are all related, with the exception of Dr. Beck. They are also the same people (or their families ) who have stirred all the trouble at Prophet Elias for years.

I have been attending Prophet Elias since its beginning. I’m a good church attendee, I’ve been an active choir member for 55 years, helped in youth programs, member of Philoptochos and a festival volunteer. My husband, Jim, is a past president of the community and has served on the church board many times and was festival chairman it’s 3rd & 4th year. My grandchildren attend Sunday school and are active in some youth programs. My daughters also sing in the choir and help with the dance programs. Good credentials for the fact finding committee even though we’re not attorneys or doctors.

Your committee has no representation from the older group at Prophet Elias. I include myself in this group! You have no representation from the people who do not want this division. (What a set up.) I’m tired of these people always complaining. I go to church to worship. I can do it in both Greek and English. ( 50 x 50 is good ) so can they. I love the togetherness of Holy Trinity and Prophet Elias. It has worked for 40 years and I resent this little group of people stirring all this trouble for years. It is my church too. You and the Metropolitan keep listening to these people but never care to hear what we, who don’t agree, have to say. It’s time for you to listen. My husband met with the Metropolitan many times and has been ignored.

I love my church but I don’t like what you, the Metropolitan and the church board have allowed to happen in our community. Things were working, maybe not perfect, for 40 years, but not bad enough to stir the trouble that’s happening today. You were sent to divide the church and please don’t deny that. I’m disappointed in your stand and how you and the Metropolitan are handling this.

I tried to say this in a good Christian way so please give other people a chance to speak and be heard without calling us TROUBLE MAKERS. We care too! We will not go down without a fight.

A Prophet Elias church attendee,

Lucille C. Kastanis

PS - I also resent this group telling me to go to Holy Trinity if I don’t like what they want. NO!! Tell them to build another church and go there.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Save the Postage - Setting the Record Straight

We can all live another day secure in the knowledge that the record has finally been set straight. Gone are the sleepless nights and paranoid looks over our shoulders. What a great relief. It would be a waste of time then to offer another review of the latest message from our parish council. What say we waste a little time?

For the sake of argument, let's assume we accept the explanation that the decision to withhold the infamous letter from the metropolitan was a mutual one made between the parish council and the assigned clergy. We will also assume as accurate that the letter was read by the president of the parish council and discussed. Copies of the letter were never distributed to all members of the parish council even though it was addressed to them. Could it be that it was never made clear that the letter was addressed to the "Esteemed Parish Council"? The metropolitan's letter was by no means confusing in its direction as we are asked to believe. Could it be that previous private, off the record, back-room discussions regarding this letter and its content were different than the end result? Lest we forget that our Proistameno doesn't know anything about and hasn't been involved with any aspect of the splitting of our community. He most certainly hasn't been involved in any plotting regarding this issue either.

Now, by a show of hands, how many of you are tired of reading about the special little meetings that have been held between the metropolitan, our Proistameno and the president. Don't be shy, raise them up high so we can count them. With the exception of the "finance summit" in Denver (and we'll get to that in a minute) it's always the same people who are afforded the honor of being part of the inner-circle plot sessions. Have any other members of the parish council been invited? Keep your hands up. In "setting the record straight" it is reported, presumably by those who were part of the discussion, that the metropolitan wanted to know how the community "felt" about splitting the parish, he would not force a separation of the churches and he wanted to get an accurate idea of what the parishioners want. If this really were the case, why on earth would he send the letter he actually sent and not one expressing these new desires? We know that this Proistameno wants a split but from what we are told the metropolitan just keeps going back and forth. You can put your hands down.

On June 13, 2007 Protocol 07-09 was sent to the "Pious Pastors, Esteemed Parish Council Presidents and Parish Finance Committee Chairmen" of the Metropolis. The referenced protocol announced the "finance summit" recently held in Denver and mentioned in "Setting the Record Straight." For the record, no mention of this meeting was made at the recent parish council meeting nor was any mention made of our community being represented. One would think this might have been of some relevance to the entire parish council. Also, in "Setting the Record Straight", no offer is made regarding what specifically was discussed. We are offered the ever enlightening phrase "issues affecting our community." Thanks, that narrows it down.

What we do get as a result of the 'finance summit' is more of "this is what His Eminence said". Not only does our metropolitan know what is in our minds and hearts (remember, the almighty dollar nonsense) but he also knows that his successor "would probably be more inclined to order the separation of the parishes." His successor could probably also order the community to remain united. Why even make a ridiculous statement like this? Instead of the continuous "he said" statements someone please tell the metropolitan to put it in writing and then we can go from there. Come to think of it, he doesn't mean what he writes, or what he says for that matter, so never mind. By the way, for the record Your Eminence, we are still The Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake City - one community NOT two parishes.

The entire discussion regarding the "split committee" is a farce. Apparently, when making the appointments from Prophet Elias, our Proistameno was able to find a nice cross section of parishioners all from the same family. Let's do another hand raising exercise: All those who believe that the assigned clergy (especially our Proistameno) will not influence the direction of this committee please raise your hands. Thanks for your participation. Now a question: When this committee requests funds to hire a "professional survey-research-opinion company" will our Proistameno demand that this first be reviewed by the finance committee before making a decision like he has with the requesting of a third priest? The split fits with his agenda and the latter does not... hmmm. We'll just have to wait and see.

Now that we've wasted our time all we can say is thanks for wasting it with us. We will continue to forge ahead inspite of having the record set straight. As always, comments both favorable and unfavorable are welcome.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Scrambling to "Set the Record Straight": a Revisionist History

If any man can convince me and bring home to me that I do not think or act aright, gladly will I change; for I search after truth, by which man never yet was harmed. But he is harmed who abideth on still in his deception and ignorance. – Marcus Aurelius

In their recent letter to the community, the Parish Council indirectly accuses TOCB of distributing information “based on hearsay, assumptions, and erroneous assertions.” The writers further contend that “it is vital to let the community know exactly the facts concerning how and when these topics of discussion occurred.” Regarding the “split”, the Council states the obvious: “this issue, and how it is addressed will have a significant impact on our community. It will take a considerable amount of time to evaluate and make an appropriate decision. As with any decision, it would be a mistake to act without first gathering all of the facts and listening to all parties.” These sentiments fail to consider the actual timeline of events, the actual events themselves, the obvious and not-so-obvious actions of the parties involved, a flawed and revisionist understanding of “Orthodox Christian” behavior, and the true nature of the council's presumed role within the community.

Let us first revisit the assertion made by Fr. Michael at the July 9 Parish Council meeting. He claims that he decided, on his own, according to the Parish Council’s recent (July 12) letter to the community, to discuss the possibility of a split, and to hold a question-and-answer session at Prophet Elias on June 17, because “someone” called and told him that “they” had posted “it” on the blog. The problem is that write-ups specifically discussing the split were not posted on the blog until July 4. The only mention prior to this time were the “history lessons” (two separate blog articles) in response to those who had been not-so-surreptitiously promoting a split. These were merely uploaded images of documents during the time Prophet Elias was built and shortly thereafter. The only other letter alluded to on any blog article prior to the June 17 Q&A session was the one presumably that we were to receive from the Metropolitan, after reneging on his promised support of the heritage corporation, as to what type of “corporation” compromise he would accept. (To this day, no one has seen such a letter, or have they? Who knows?) Unfair, you say? Hearsay? Mistaken assumptions? Erroneous assertions? We don’t think so. Not after the behavior we keep witnessing from this clergy and this Parish Council that constantly scrambles to explain away behaviors that are inexplicable.

At the risk of promoting “hearsay, assumptions and erroneous assertions,” can we examine the events surrounding the belated release of the Metropolitan’s letter? It is instructive as to the mindset that appears, if our eyes and ears are to be believed, to be developing.

  • In February, over 70 percent of those gathered at a special General Assembly at Holy Trinity voted for the formation of a Hellenic Heritage Corporation, an entity designed to promote Hellenism and Orthodoxy and to facilitate fundraising for badly needed repairs for our churches. We were informed of His Eminence’s support, so much so he intended it to be the model for other communities in the Metropolis. Opinions run hot on both sides; each is heard, and the motion carries by a wide margin. (Coincidentally, this initiative is almost IMMEDIATELY scuttled by those who, "rumor has it", are ACTIVELY and not-that-secretly, working toward a split of the community into two separate parishes. Lest the powers-that-be gleefully assert that we print rumor and hearsay, let them remember that the "rumors and hearsay" regarding this issue have, in fact, been proved true!)
  • Almost immediately thereafter the Metropolitan, aided and abetted by the motion’s opponents, overturns the initiative and suggests both sides work toward an "acceptable compromise". We’ve yet to hear what that is, and we have no "hearsay" or "rumor" or "erroneous assumptions or assertions" to print about it. When it's released, IF it is ever released, we will discuss it, as we have all other community issues.
  • Nick Colessides, a parishioner and Parish Council member, with over 40 years service to this community, having the courage of his convictions, objects too strenuously to the subterfuge and is reported by “someone” to the Metropolitan for “unchristian” behavior and is, without opportunity for hearing or explanation, summarily excommunicated and removed from the Parish Council in late February.
  • After a series of e-mails objecting to the events taking place within the community, along with a growing region- and nation-wide scandal regarding sexual abuse cases, the blog is established in mid-April as an online forum wherein these issues might be openly discussed. This action resulted due to the growing secrecy and stonewalling on the part of the clergy AND the Parish Council, who, we learned were operating under an unprecedented “confidentiality agreement” demanded of them by the clergy.
  • With resentment growing in the community, the Metropolitan sends his letter dated May 31 to the community – a letter that is addressed to the clergy, the Parish Council AND the entire community. This letter does not SUGGEST a split; it mandates HOW the split will take place. (The Metropolitan may have currently backed away from this line in the sand he drew at that time, but his letter’s intent is clear.) Correctly assessing the mood of many in the city, and in view of the tone of the Metropolitan’s letter, we think we can fairly surmise that the Proistameno and members of the Parish Council decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and that the release of that letter under the existing circumstances would ignite a firestorm. As such it was decided to defer its release.
  • Those parishioners promoting the split send out their “manifesto” in mid-June, which was duly posted by the blog. (Father Michael may have been responding to this event on June 17, but certainly not to any inference by the blog as to a Metropolitan’s letter regarding the split, because the existence of that letter was not as yet known to anyone save the Proistameno and the Parish Council.)
  • Near the end of June Nick Colessides’ sacramental privileges are restored, save his right to be on the Parish Council (a face-saving “privilege” the Metropolitan reserved as his own prerogative, after having obviously acted in haste, based on “hearsay” and no first-hand information, or interview of the parishioner in question.)
  • At the end of June, the Parish Council sends a community-wide letter explaining their recent actions along with an “explanation” of the Metropolitan’s letter to come.
  • The Metropolitan’s letter, along with Fr. Michael’s interpretation of that letter, in addition to the previous "translation" by the Parish Council (at this point one would think that English is not the Metropolitan's native language!) are distributed to the community in early July. Commentary regarding these events is posted on the blog AFTER the letter’s mail delivery reaches parishioners' homes.
  • In mid-July the Parish Council feels compelled to "set the record straight" and sends its latest missive.

The sequence of events outlined above is, unfortunately, indicative of a clergy that seeks to micro-manage far too much, impose its will from above, and demand absolute and blind obedience regarding every facet of the community’s life. When the events head south, the clergy then relies on a compliant Parish Council to "interpret" (one would think English is not the native language for most of us either!) and failing that, to assume blame and fall on its sword.

Truth is, there's plenty of blame to go around. The tone of the Metropolitan's letter to this community was and remains unmistakable; the contempt contained therein is obvious. It cannot be soft-pedaled and cannot be "explained away". It is WHY that letter was not sent out immediately after it arrived. Our Parish Council apologizes to those of us who were outraged at not being sent a letter that was addressed to us. They should also be "apologizing" that the letter, due to its tone, could not be sent immediately upon its arrival, and they themselves should be outraged at its tone. Rather than resist these defamatory and imperious impulses, the Parish Council, some individually, all collectively, continually acquiesce in the face of blatant high-handedness and utter disrespect toward this community as a whole. And, as they themselves do not insist upon respect for us, either from the clergy or the hierarchy, they wonder that their standing in the community is dropping. For this they blame the blog, instead of their own willingness to roll over.

Rather than insisting on the autonomy that our parents and grandparents enjoyed in the non-ecclesiastical aspects of our parish life - the autonomy and concilliar relationship that allowed this community to thrive and grow for over 100 years - this Parish Council forgets WHO it represents and blindly follows the whims and fancies of a clergy that no longer relies on love, reason and mutual respect to achieve worthwhile ends. When this is pointed out, they cry foul.

When those of us who would ask more of OUR representatives object, we we're told we exhibit “non-Christian, unOrthodox behavior.” (And this isn't name-calling? Like labelling someone "unpatriotic", it self-righteously reeks of false piety and passive-aggressive behavior.) When did acquiescence in the face of deceptions by omission and commission become “Christian”? Did not the Lord, the example of the “meek” servant, trash the temple in his outrage at the presence of the moneylenders? Did not the Lord castigate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees? Did the Lord not ask us to pray humbly and privately? Were the Apostles quiet? Were they meek? Were the saints mild and meek? In the “FOOD FOR THOUGHT” section of this blog there is a quote by St. Basil the Great. Pretty stern stuff, is it not?

The Patristic tradition of this church is not meek! It relies on obedience and faith, but it also relies on reason and love, and it relies on the “Royal Priesthood” – the laity – to use its God-given reason in service to the Lord and to the City of God. The exercise of reason, of resistance in the face of injustice or mendacity, is not unchristian; in fact the opposite is true.

Again this all smacks of an eleventh-hour posturing. And the really absurd twist in all of this is that the solution is there, has been there all along, and it is simple. Forget the unofficial, non-decision-making committee whose composition, particularly insofar as the PE contingent is concerned, is dubious. Forget even the expense for a polling firm to devise a survey, although it might prove enlightening. TAKE A VOTE! Call a special General Assembly and TAKE A VOTE! Take it, this time, with the understanding that it MUST BE HONORED. If this initiative is so virtuous, necessary and vital, it will pass. If not, it won't. Vox populi, vox dei. Φωνη λαου, οργη θεου.

As it now stands, though, the timeline clearly reveals MAJOR miscalculation on the part of the Metropolitan, our clergy, AND, sadly, our Parish Council. Sorry, gentlemen, but there you have it. We're sorry your collective feelings are hurt, but it is not unchristian to call it as one sees it. Jesus Christ Himself set the example. Is it "nice"? - perhaps not, but we don't think we've been unfair, and we no longer have time for you to "get it," to "learn as you go". Very simply, we object to the ongoing lack of transparency. We object to your undemocratic inclinations. We object to confidentiality agreements. We object to your use of the "we-know-best syndrome" that tends to infect so many of today's leaders. We don't have time for you to figure this out - it is NOT THAT DIFFICULT. If our Metropolitan wanted to send out his edict on May 31, and it was addressed to us, along with you and the Proistameno, it was your DUTY to send it along on his behalf. The apology is "nice", but superfluous. That's what Metropolitan Isaiah wanted. It's not your duty to protect him from his lack of ability or willingness to persuade with respect and love. It's not your job to protect him from his own worst inclinations. We're a hierarchical church, right? You guys love to throw that bromide at us when it covers up for your lack of initiative and fortitude, do you not? Why not send it, and let the chips fall where they may?

Ah, but then, in what kind of position would that have put you collectively? Might it have forced you, as a board, to FINALLY take a stand? We can't have that now, can we? Like the timid colleague among you whom one of our parishioners described in an earlier blog who would do ANYTHING to avoid a situation wherein our Metropolitan would exercise his "privilege" and throw the lot of you out, you have sought to avoid your true responsibility - the tough one, so you cover for the Metropolitan and cover for the Proistameno.

We did not elect you to cling to your position at any and all costs; we elected you to do what is right for all of us, not just to hang on tooth and nail. You cover up for the clergy, so their excesses and caveats can be hidden, hiding behind terms such as "hierarchical" or "uncanonical". When called on it, no one can provide any salient answers. Then you all turn and blame the messengers who point out the cover-ups. But think about it, we also did NOT elect you to "protect" us from seeing a letter that might "upset" us. We are adults.

Ultimately, who are ANY of you to decide what we can see, and what we must not see? Who are you to decide the timing? The Metropolitan should be FURIOUS with all of you. Who are you collectively, along with the Proistameno, to usurp his presumed privileges? Who are you to decide what he should and should not write and send out and WHEN? We submit that this was not your mission, not your mandate, when we elected you. You've mistaken your constituents as "ignorant".

We are NOT the "great unwashed", fellas. You were not elected as an oligarchy, "hoi oligoi", and we are not "hoi polloi". We know transparency when we see it, and we understand the nuances between "sins" of omission and commission. We know if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck - not a swan. Your constituents, the ones who elected you, are far more sophisticated than you think. The blog is your reminder of that fact - the one you have collectively chosen to IGNORE or FORGET - to your detriment, and unfortunately to our community's.

Friday, July 13, 2007

The Truth Shall Set You Free

The game of finger pointing has begun.

The Proistameno points his finger at the President and the Parish Council. During Wednesday's Parish Council meeting, the Proistameno feigns ignorance.
He says that president Nick Varanakis only read it [Metropolitan's letter dated May 31, 2007] during the Parish Council meeting; and the president is the only one who had a copy.
The Proistameno claims he did not get a copy; on a matter of such magnitude how is it possible for the Proistameno to claim that he did not have a copy of the Metropolitan's letter?
Is his statement credible?
Is it believable?
How is it that the "decider" ("you are here to assist me") does not have a copy of the letter which is addressed to him, the Parish Council, and the Community?
Does the Proistameno’s claim of deniability pass the "smell" test?

And the game keeps going on.

The lie gets bigger.
The Proistameno says that he appointed the Metropolitan's suggested committee, on a "first come, first served basis," as people asked to be appointed.
Of course that is not the truth, because the Proistameno did NOT tell the Community how the appointment to the committees would be made.
Members from the Holy Trinity committee have confirmed that Fr. Matthew appointed them.
I would like to think that if one were to ask, Father Matthew would tell the truth about how the appointments were made.
Fr. Matthew does not lie.

And the lies keep on coming!

It is sad that the Proistameno makes claims which cannot be backed up by factual accuracies.
It is sadder that the Proistameno does not remember what he said, when, and to whom?
If he had told the truth he would not have to remember what he said.

And the saga of the big lie continues.

The Proistameno’s spin on the Metropolitan's letter assumes that we do not know how to read the English language.
The Proistameno insists that, "This Committee is not a decision-making group only a group that will dialogue [sic], gather, and inform the Metropolitan on what the Community wants."
My reading of the Metropolitan's letter and its interpretation is that the Metropolitan wants the split.
With him it is NOT a matter of choice.
The Metropolitan does not want to "dialogue."
The Metropolitan wants to split OUR Parish in two.
He is NOT asking us; he is telling us.

And the saga of the big lie continues.

Conveniently the Proistameno has an alibi as to why he "spilled the beans" about the Metropolitan's letter on June 17, 2007, to the communicants at Prophet Elias.
He says that the story was out on the blog early; he then decided to preempt his agreement with the Parish Council, and to tell the PE parishioners who attended church on Sunday June 17, 2007.
Except for one thing: NOTHING APPEARS ON THE BLOG BETWEEN JUNE 4, 2007, AND JUNE 17, 2007 about the Metropolitan's letter.
No one knew anything about the Metropolitan's letter except the Clergy and the Parish Council.
And, neither one said anything to us parishioners. He again conveniently forgot to tell the truth. If he was not given a copy of the Metropolitan's letter, how was it possible for him to recite its contents [re: the establishment of the committees] with such accuracy; and, to hold a 45-minute question-and-answer period?

The saga of the big lie continues.

This Proistamenos is creating turmoil.
This Proistameno contributes to strife.
He contributes to duplicity.
The facts speak for themselves.
His invidious, surreptitious, conspiratorial practices are offensive, objectionable, and most of all un-Christian.

The saga of the big lie continues.

It appears that the June 27, 2007 letter to the community is contradicted by the Proistameno's undated letter to the Community.
Does the Proistameno talk to the Parish Council?
Do they discuss the affairs of the Community?
It would be best if both parties have expended the effort to unify the community!
The Proistameno can save himself and us all a lot of heartache.
The Proistameno should ask to be reassigned elsewhere.

Ο voώv voείτω, και o έχωv ώτα ακoυείv ακoυέτω.

- Nick J. Colessides

End this Mess NOW!

End this mess NOW and leave our parish as it is—spiritual polygamists that we are or not (and btw, I'm descended from the local ones, too). Who finally noticed that after all these years and why is it more important now that when PE was consecrated and during the ensuing years since? My Mormon side senses that this is merely an expedient revelation because other tactics haven’t worked.
Split the churches ASAP to end this draining community drama--at which point my family (and anyone else I can drag) is off to Holy Trinity where we look forward to being greeted as welcome members. We'll hopefully be able to worship in an atmosphere free of the selfishly trite sentiments often heard around Prophet Elias. I know, as does most everyone else, that while this issue can be played as a spiritual and administrative one, in most minds it has never been about anything other than who controls the money and who calls the shots--in English only, of course--at PE.

And I can’t help but ask—Is it any wonder at all why our parish has trouble attracting and sustaining members? I assure you that if I were not born into this parish, not married in this parish, not having my children baptized in this parish, and otherwise heavily invested emotionally in this parish, I would find someplace else to spend my time on Sundays ... These events do not make a great recruiting poster, either!
Thank you for your time.

John Saltas

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Split Our Community? Who Are You?

As I received and read this letter I can't help but notice its introduction. "Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ". What does this mean? This is the way a spiritual leader should address his people with sincerity and respect and also consider himself one of them. I have a hard time swallowing this because our Proistamenos' letter is portrayed to us like some kind of memo at aa Monday morning meeting at work. There is to be no discussion. This is how it will be, now go to work. When I receive a letter from the Proistamenos addressing me as "Brother in Christ", Iexpect he will treat me with the respect of a brother. Who among us would be deceitful to their brother. By keeping the said "unchristian" letter a secret from the community demonstrates our leaders lack of courage. The lack of courage beacause he knows what is happening is wrong and perhaps dosn't know how to handle the situation. But he is part of the situation, he has helped it grow.

The Proistamenos should be there for us through any situation which may arise in our christian or personal life when there is a need. How then can we put our faith in the Proistamenos when he is not being honest with us? We are kept in the dark with the exception of chandelier lights reflecting off the Sunday offering tray. We have people voting unanimously for on our behalf. Surely someone in this community is aware of the subject up for vote concerning the well being of our community. Here is an idea-allow us to vote. After all this is our community.

As I find myself looking through the book which was made for the consecration of Prophet Elias I cant help but notice the great presence Archbishop Iakovos. Giving his blessing again, as He had before for Prophet Elias Church. I see many people in feast, dance and prayer. these people are the community, these people are still here. Proistamenos, you were not there which makes you a visitor and we will continue to be here after your visit is finished.

Should Metropolitan Isaiah question the authority of an Archbishop. Furthermore, should a Proistamenos challenge an Archbishop. I do expect that our Proistamenos should challenge our Metropolitan in splitting our church, since his letter reads as if the Metropolitan is making him do this.

I have tried to turn my head and ignore rumors I have heard in the past refusing to accept that this is real. But now I have decided that the people whom I have entrusted, to make decisions for the people of this community, have failed me. It is time to be a church again and we can't allow ouselves to be run like a franchise with our corporate headquarters in Denver. Our Proistamenos is failing us. Our Metropolitan is failing us. Our Parish Council is failing us. We are in trouble.

We have been insulted by our Proistamenos, Metropolitan, and Parish Council.

What a shame!

Demetri G Politis

Moderator's Note: Due to the length of Mr. Politis' comment to the preceding blog, we determined it best to post the piece as a separate blog.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Excuses Are Alibis and Alibis Are Lies

Ahhh, the fun continues. Sadly, the lies, deception and back-tracking continue, along with the fun. No sense in waiting... here we go!

As we mentioned yesterday, two members of our Parish Council and our Proistameno made a house call to the Metropolitan in Denver on Monday. (side note: the Metropolitan was just here for three days the week before - did they forget to tell him something while he was here that required this visit on their part?)

We have been told regarding the withholding of the Metropolitan's letter of May 31, 2007 that it was not our Proistameno's fault the letter was not immediately sent to the community. Yup, that's right, it was not his fault! Our Proistameno was merely following the directive of the Parish Council! So, it's the Parish Council's fault? Parish Councils have been dismissed for doing far less than convincing a Proistameno to withhold a letter from the Metropolitan

Let's bring everyone up to speed. Our Proistameno receives said letter and it is read to the Parish Council at their June 4 meeting. Copies of the letter are not made available to the members of the Parish Council (what? no copy machine in the church office?); it was only read to them. Our Proistameno and President saw that the letter was addressed to the entire parish, but no one else was given the honor of actually reading it. It was decided that the letter would be withheld until the Parish Council could communicate with the Metropolitan. Communicate what?!

Certainly our Proistameno had nothing to do with this decision, and he certainly explained the importance of distributing this letter to the community, by telling all in the room to whom the letter was addressed. (So,again, not his fault!?)

Word gets out that said letter exists, our Parish Council writes their sorry epistle followed by our Proistameno's insulting letter along with the famous, or infamous, letter from the Metropolitan, which, it was determined HAD to be sent out to silence the outrage. So now that we're all up to speed, let's remember it's the Parish Council's fault!

Even more baffling now is that the Parish Council will soon try to convince us that it really IS their fault. Here's a question for us to ponder: In the almost five years that this Proistameno has been here, when has he ever done anything other than what he has wanted to do? This is cut and dried. The letter was addressed to the Proistameno, Parish Council AND the Greek Orthodox Community. That means all of us and we all should have received the letter IMMEDIATELY! This Proistameno knew very well to whom the letter was addressed, and even if the Parish Council convinced him not to disseminate it to the community (highly doubtful that he can be convinced to do anything he doesn't want to do) it is HIS responsibility to see that his flock is informed. Again, cut and dried - no ifs, ands, or buts. Sometimes it's lonely at the top, but being at the top also implies responsibility.

If this Parish Council makes any effort to take responsibility for this Proistameno's continuous blunders, they should be ashamed of themselves in that they have failed in their duty to represent us. They should know by now that we will NOT be fooled any more. The time has come for this Parish Council to start FINALLY representing the people who elected them, and stop covering up the devious actions of this Proistameno. You can tell your lies to the Metropolitan and he might believe you, because it may or may not be in his self-interest, but we do not! Just remember Reverend, Excuses are alibis, and alibis are LIES.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Fiddling While Rome Burns

Now that we have fulfilled our moral obligation in offering assistance to those poor lost souls in New York who, like us, are functioning "uncanonically", practicing "un-Christian polygamy", it is time to look at our dysfunctional situation and the antics of our regime.

A parish council meeting is scheduled for Wednesday July 11. One wonders what, in light of the recently received correspondence and all the other shenanigans, the parish council will discuss at their meeting. Not that this has been announced, but two members of our parish council and our Proistameno were in Denver meeting with the metropolitan on Monday July 9. It will be interesting to see whether any mention will be made regarding the issues discussed at this meeting. Considering the track record of this Proistameno and this regime, our bet is no. Come to think of it, even if they say something, how can we believe what they say in light of the recent deceptive correspondence we have received? Rome burns and our regime fiddles.

Our appointed "split committee" will meet today, July 10. Undoubtedly, the make-up of the members of the committee will be made public soon thereafter. Interesting to note that four members of the committee, appointed from Prophet Elias, are related and two members from the same appointment are spearheading the effort to split. Still unclear is what exactly this committee will be doing. Depending on whether we believe our Proistameno or the metropolitan, they will either be gathering information or facilitating a split. Also unclear is the role our assigned clergy will play on this committee, which will function outside the purview of our parish council. Maybe clearer direction was given from the metropolitan at the recent meeting. Who's to know what to believe? Can we say confidentiality agreement? Oh well, Rome burns and our regime fiddles.

Over the past several months reference has been made to correspondence involving the metropolitan, Archdiocese and our community. Members of our community have requested that this referenced correspondence be made public for our edification. Their requests have fallen on deaf ears. One of two options are in play here: it is easier to control us if we remain in the dark, or no letters exist and we've just been told they exist. Both options are plausible given this regime's past behavior. Recently, requests have been made yet again to make this correspondence public. We'll see what happens. Rome burns and our regime fiddles.

The days to come could be edifying. On the other hand, experience tells us that we would be better served not to hold our breath. A golden opportunity to make a good faith effort to bring the community up to speed will be lost. As the saying goes, hope springs eternal. In the meantime, Rome burns and our regime fiddles.

Monday, July 9, 2007

We Need To Save Them, Too!

A great deal has been disseminated on this forum over that past several days and even more has gone back and forth among members of our community. We have endured the purposeful withholding of a letter from the metropolitan by our Proistameno. We have read the parish council's shameful "update" letter and our Proistameno's ridiculous "explanation" letter both riddled with inaccuracies if not outright lies. We have been called "uncanonical" and according to the manifesto of those in favor of a split, we are needing to "become canonically correct with the Archdiocese for both churches and "this idea has the full support of and has been encouraged by the Archdiocese for years." Not to be forgotten, we are involved in some type of "un-Christian polygamy."

If we are in fact "uncanonical" practicing "un-Christian polygamy" and in need of the ideas the manifesto proposes, supported by the Archdiocese for years, we are not alone. That's right, we are not alone. In the Archdiocesan District, there are two churches in Astoria, New York - St. Demetrios Cathedral and St. Catherine - St. George. Three priests serve both churches and the Presiding Priest (Proistameno) is the same at both churches. "Un-Christian polygamy" being practiced right under the nose of the Archdiocese in the District of our Archbishop himself. They are "uncanonical"; we must save them!!! We are morally bound to assist these lost souls in New York. Maybe we should immediately pass a resolution. If the Archdiocese has given its "full support" and encouragement in splitting our community, it stands to reason that it would do the same in its own back yard.

Here all along, we thought we were the only community functioning as one parish with two churches in our Archdiocese. Surprise! Our ruling hierarch certainly has made no effort to enlighten us with the truth. Through their manifesto, the small minority pushing the split has tried to convince us that the Archdiocese supports and encourages their position and has done so for years. Just another plate of garbage they are trying to shove down our throats. Visit the Archdiocese web site http://www.goarch.org/, look at the Archdiocese District and see the facts for yourselves.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Of Mice and Men

Some time ago a fellow parishioner, who had observed a recent Parish Council meeting, reported that one particular member of the Parish Council, who had had the misfortune of being on the board that Metropolitan Isaiah dismissed a few years ago in his last questionable en masse housecleaning, expressed that he had been kicked off before and didn’t want to do anything that would get him kicked off again. Apparently it did not matter to him what the issue was before the council, it was just terribly important to this person to know and to test which way the wind might be blowing, so that he would do nothing that might raise the Metropolitan's ire and get himself kicked off yet a second time.

One is tempted to smirk and respond that this must be the mindset of just one timid soul. And though we may smirk, roll our eyes, or even become disgusted by the implicit cowardice, we really ought to pause and have some compassion. Considering human nature, under normal circumstances, nobody wants to be remembered as a parish council member who was “kicked out”. It’s a humiliation, one that our clergy seem to happily wield as a cudgel as of late – a weapon employed to keep us wayward, callow, childlike, “unchristian” laypersons in line. And, in truth, it speaks VOLUMES about the clergy’s mindset and their culpability in this latest morass (among others), much more so than the fear of one or perhaps many timid parish council members. While one might show some compassion for the council member(s), the mindset of the clergy who take advantage of such sentiments is beneath contempt. This mindset should be resisted by all means necessary, even if it means dismissal or mass resignation. The actions of the clergy of late are not examples of the way true leaders lead, nor do they mirror in any way the example of Christ’s gentle leadership based on reason and love.

We don’t believe for a moment that there is anyone serving on our Parish Council who is not there because he felt and feels that he can effect positive outcomes for us and our community. But, we submit that no positive outcome will come from timidity in the face of outrageous, deceptive, behind-the-scenes agendas on the part of our clergymen in concert with a few parishioners who seek nothing less than a what they think will be a quick, “bloodless” power grab.

This is the stuff of dictatorship, not democracy – do we even remember that term? It’s the precious legacy handed down to us by our ancient forebears, the Greeks, who were the great inspiration of our American forefathers. It’s the legacy that our clergy, in concert with the laity, fought for in 1821 when the Greeks finally threw off the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. The same legacy that inspired our American forefathers in 1776 when they threw off the colonial yoke of the then-dominant British Empire – that one!

If the agenda of those who would have us split our community into two parishes is so advantageous, so correct, then it will surely stand the light of day, and its virtues will be obvious. Our immediate forebears – parents, grandparents, great-grandparents – foresaw the possibility and made provisions for such in the best Greek AND American traditions. If the splitting of this community is so necessary, if the sentiments behind it are so sincere and so virtuous, then it should be able to stand squarely as an initiative in the face of a full and open plebiscite. If its virtues are in fact that self-evident, it will pass, and there will be no need for all this behind-the-scenes manipulation. If it does not pass, those who supported it should graciously stand aside and either work with their fellow parishioners in the construct voted upon by the majority, or GO BUILD THEIR OWN CHURCH!

Ah, but there’s the rub, is it not? It is so much easier (and cheaper!) to tap into the current imperious, non-democratic, non-Greek and un-American mindset of the clergy of today and just present this as a done deal, relying on the general passivity that is, unfortunately, so prevalent in today’s society, and most PAINFULLY evident collectively among our Parish Council members! They don’t even want to go PERSONALLY on record for anything they might say, again perhaps for fear of raising the ire of the powers that be, hence their unwillingness to have any sort of detailed notes from their meetings. Even our U.S. Senators and Congressmen have their individual votes on given issues recorded and publicized. We the people of this community have every right to know EXACTLY where each of our Parish Council members stands on all the issues affecting us.

Apparently, however, for those advocating this split-by-caveat, why deal with messy votes, or raucous General Assemblies where precedent and logic MIGHT prevail? Just get the hierarchy to issue an edict and move on. You disagree? You’re "unchristian, an unbeliever who is worshipful of the 'almighty dollar', an advocate of some sort of 'polygamy'!"

The time has come for this undemocratic nonsense to end, for all to stand and be counted, and most particularly so our Parish Council, regardless of their individual stances or personal opinions about the matters at hand. Issues of this sort are decided by reasoned open debate, and the rule of law – the rule of the majority as defined by our forefathers (and mothers!), Greek and American. Our board should COLLECTIVELY stand firm, to a man, and say that the behaviors we are witnessing on the part of the clergy and a small minority of parishioners of this WHOLE community are not acceptable. There is a forum where these issues are to be resolved and that forum is not bound by confidentiality agreements and secret side agreements, PERIOD. Mice or men, gentlemen.

Barbara Billinis Colessides

Saturday, July 7, 2007

My review of Fr. Michael's and Metropolitan Isaiah's letters

Greetings Bloggers,

Having now reviewed the latest letters sent to our homes from the church I would like to share my ideas about them with you.

Beginning with Fr. Michael’s letter;

If I didn’t know that Fr. Michael was such a well educated individual I might mistake his letter as a misinterpretation of the Metropolitan’s letter. But, judging from his education level, established lingual proficiency, the fact that he withheld the Metropolitan’s letter from us for over a month when it was explicitly addressed to us, and his continued neglect of a large portion of our community; I believe his letter to be a carefully constructed lie. This letter is designed to manipulate our parish into thinking that Fr. Michael is “on our side.” I am of the opinion that Fr. Michael has been a proponent of the schism all along. As evidence for this theory I cite his refusal to care for the spiritual needs of his parishioners that primarily attend services at Holy Trinity, he (allegedly) gave the separatists permission to have a meeting in the boardroom at Prophet Elias, and held a 45 minute question and answer session about the schism, all after proclaiming to know nothing about it. He has been living within our community for some time now and is aware that the Metropolitan’s letter will undoubtedly meet large opposition in our community. Not the most efficient means to achieve their desired ends. So he wrote a politically correct analysis of the letter hoping to sneak by the common sense of our community.

Fr. Michael’s letter states, “His Eminence has asked Father Matthew and me to establish a committee to begin dialogue and to gather information about the possibility of having two separate Parishes in Salt Lake City.” NO WHERE, in the letter from Metropolitan Isaiah, is such a request made. He explicitly challenges our community to comply with an edict set forth by a conference over which HE presided, that was composed of individuals HE invited.

This “committee” that Fr. Michael, along with Fr. Matthew, intends to construct, cannot materialize as he outlines in the letter. You are missing the point sir, WE are parishioners of the Greek Orthodox Church of Salt Lake. NOT parishioners of Prophet Elias OR Holy Trinity, rather we are parishioners of Prophet Elias AND Holy Trinity.

Fr. Michael also states that “rumors” about separate parishes in Salt Lake have been circulating for 10 years. That is an impressive dedication to research for someone who has only been here for less than 5 years. A “rumor” as defined by the North American Encarta Dictionary is a GENERALLY CIRCULATED story, report, or statement without facts to confirm its truth. Whilst I may not be as “in the know” as some privy members of our community that are inappropriately sworn to secrecy, I am very active in the church and have NEVER, before now, encountered such “rumors.” If such rumors did exist, then I never knew them to cause disharmony within our community before they were brought out into the light of day and forced down our throats along with a challenge to dissociate our parish.

Since Fr. Michael has chosen to isolate himself from a vast portion of our community I question his awareness of the desires of these parishioners, and therefore his ability to construct a committee in which said parishioners’ concerns will be adequately represented.

Secondly the Metropolitan’s letter;

In regards to the Clergy-Laity Conference, I fail to see how such a “conveniently selected” group of individuals has any right to dictate the future of our community. These people are not a part of our community, they cannot have an accurate understanding of the unique dynamic of our community, they do not have a vested interest in this community to the extent that those of us, whose parents and grandparents funded, constructed, and nurtured our community into its present day state, do. Furthermore, any issuance of a resolution calling for direct action from our community; indeed, actions that would constitute a reforming of our very foundations, should originate from our community. With direct representation and input from our community. No one notified me of our representative at this council, or consulted me as to whether or not this representative was aware of, or capable of protecting, my wishes in regard to such an important issue.

The Metropolitan, along with the local proponents of the schism, have repeatedly claimed that the existence of our community in its present state, one which was condoned both by our forefathers and the late Archbishop Iakovos, is “uncanonical.” NEVER, in any official correspondence, to my knowledge, have any of these individuals cited these “pertinent canons.” I am not an expert on the canons of our church, and the clergy are undoubtedly more educated on the subject than I. However, I have been and continue to review the canons of our church, and have found no evidence of any canons that our community is not in concordance with.

In addition the letter contains an emphasis on the fact that this “resolution” was unanimously passed. Great! These people, that have nothing to do with our community, have unanimously passed a resolution calling for a schism in our community. Last time I checked, we also have evidence of a resolution passed unanimously in 1969 by the elected representatives of our community. This resolution states that any effort to separate the community must be presented in writing, 6 months in advance of any definitive action, and a supportive vote of 75% of the parish population is required at a general assembly to validate such a schism.

This “challenge” issued to us is a moot point. We have been challenged to comply with the teachings of the church. As I stated earlier, no body has outlined what these teachings are. A more accurate statement would be to say that we are being challenged to comply with the desires of Metropolitan Isaiah, Father Michael, and a small minority of parishioners that are attempting to cause a rift in our community. It seems to me that the majority’s desires should be pursued. I personally have spoken to what must, by now, amount to nearly 100 members of our youth and a staggering 3, have been in favor of the schism. I wonder why this issue is being handed down from above without any sort of survey to ascertain the wishes of the majority of our community. Is it possible that not as much support for this schism exists as its supporters would have us believe?

Polygamy, what an appropriate topic for Salt Lake City, we have a magnificent history of it in our state don’t we? A five year-old once told me; “If you love chocolate ice cream so much, why don’t you marry it?” This same logic applies to a thought process in which a priest is married to a building. Fr. John had ONE bride, OUR PARISH, the parish of the Greek Orthodox Christians of Salt Lake. Our parish, our church, our community; whatever you wish to call it, is NOT the buildings in which we worship, or the groups of people with whom we usually worship on Sunday. It is every single Greek Orthodox Christian in this valley who is entitled to attend services in either cathedral. If Father Michael is incapable of shepherding such a parish, perhaps we should ascertain if there is a priest out there capable of fulfilling that job description.

The next passage in the Metropolitan’s letter is outright offensive. There exists only One Who is aware of the inter-workings of our hearts and minds and He is not Metropolitan Isaiah. We are consumed with the almighty dollar? I have two of them in my pocket as I write to you. I worked about 70 hours at last year’s festival, I must have done that for the great overtime pay. The Salt Lake City Choirs comprised about 90% of the attending choir at the conference three weeks ago in Ogden. Not to mention the additional contributions made by George Miller and Toni Mae Dwyer who directed and played the organ at the conference. We must have received a big signing bonus for that show. Two weeks ago the Dionysius and OPA dance groups went up to the Pocatello festival, at our own expense, to perform for them, and help gain publicity for that function. Obviously a money motivated move on our part. If money is such an inappropriately consuming factor in the hearts and minds of our parishioners, why did the Metropolitan address it not once, but twice during his sermon last week at Prophet Elias? “If every Greek Orthodox Christian in America gave one percent of their net income, we would never talk about money at church.” “The members of this (I forget the name) parish give $2,500 each, per year, in stewardship.” Statements of this nature were made by the Metropolitan in his sermon. Followed shortly by a passing of the tray; DURING THE RECITATION OF THE CREED! I find it rather difficult to focus on prayer and my faith when you’re waving a collection basket under my nose as I recite my theological beliefs. We are not a monastic community in Salt Lake. Our church operations require significant funding. Our budget for the salary, wages, and housing of our clergy and other church employee’s is $473,324. The expenses of the 2006 festival amounted to $577,247. Our Archdiocesean obligations, an expense that I suspect would ultimately increase if the hierarchy was collecting from two separate parishes, is $133,614 this year. This is only a portion of our necessary yearly expenses, not even including such simple things as the utility bill which is $130,000 this year. This kind of money does not fall out of the sky.

The Metropolitan, as I have been told by the Parish Council, has repeatedly assured us that any decision to split would be the community’s decision to make. Why then, is he calling for a committee that WILL separate our community, when he has not asked us if we want to separate?

Finally, the Metropolitan in his closing paragraph, refers once again to the mother/daughter analogy that he made in his celebratory letter of 1991. This statement is detrimental to our community and is as inaccurate now as it was in 1991. When the Metropolitan took it upon himself, to define the relationship of our two cathedrals who’s ACTUAL relationship had been established since the first services were held in Prophet Elias TWENTY-TWO YEARS EARLIER in 1969. Prophet Elias has never been and is not now, a lesser daughter church to Holy Trinity. Both cathedrals are co-equal partners of the same importance functioning in unison to serve the needs of our Salt Lake community. The Metropolitan accurately states that, “It is a given that the parishioners are in charge of their community properties.” What he fails to mention is that these properties INCLUDE the Holy Trinity Cathedral and the Prophet Elias Cathedral. The metropolis did not fund the construction of these properties and the original deeds are in OUR name, not the metropolis’. If the Metropolitan chooses to exercise his ecclesiastical power and declare a second parish be formed in Salt Lake he may do so. Anyone wishing to participate in the second parish has the God given freewill to do so. I personally would support my brothers and sisters at this parish as they pursue the will of God. But, they would need to build their own cathedral, because they have no right to annex any part of OUR parish properties.

I would remind both authors of these letters that I have reviewed, that you are pledged to be stewards and servants of our community, not dictators. Please work to achieve the desires of the majority of this community and to preserve our rich heritage and unique nature. Just because we are the only Parish with multiple cathedrals doesn’t mean that we’re wrong. On the contrary, we’re blessed to be a part of this special community, one that is best suited to meet our needs in its original unmolested form.

Respectfully,

Matthew Hedberg

A Ruse to Confuse

This Proistameno must go.

The Metropolitan’s letter speaks of the passage of a “unanimous” resolution by the delegates that occurred at the Clergy-Laity Assembly in Oklahoma City. Since it is becoming fairly clear that a number of "interesting" ramifications are resulting from this event, we deserve answers to the following questions:

Who are the delegates from our Community who attended this Clergy Laity Assembly in Oklahoma City; who were those who were part of the unanimity?

Was the Proistameno from our Parish a delegate? Was the president of our Parish Council a delegate? Was the first vice president of our Parish Council a delegate? Why did they not report to the Community that they supported such a resolution? What are they hiding?

Did our Community’s delegates vote for the passage of the Resolution?

Who directed the non-clergy delegates NOT to report to our Community the fact that they voted for passage of this resolution?

Why did they only choose to disclose that it was a "non-binding" resolution, but not the fact that they supported it? Should they not have consulted with our parishioners whom they presumably represented? Was the failure to do so by design? Was that all part of the deception? On a question of such great importance for our community did both the clergy and lay delegates not think that it appropriate to inform the Community in advance and to ask for direction?

Why there was no report to the Community from our delegates who voted for the passage of the "non-binding resolution" during our last general assembly?

Did they need to make public the Metropolitan’s letter before informing us?

Was the "non-binding" resolution not of sufficient importance in the minds of our delegates to ask what the Parishioners of the affected Community thought about the issue?

Did our delegates have advance knowledge about the presentation of the resolution?

What is the legal effect of the non-binding resolution?

Is the resolution premature?

Is it non-binding because it needs to be either affirmed or rejected by the National Clergy-Laity Conference next year, before it becomes operative and binding?

Does this Proistameno still stick with his story that he did not know anything about the “split”?

And while we're at it:

Could somebody please enlighten us “country bumpkins” as to who authored the infamous resolution? Can someone tell us who is the person who placed it on the agenda? Can someone tell us who sponsored it for consideration? Were our Clergy delegate(s) instrumental in its presentation to the Assembly?

Did our Clergy delegate(s) act contrary to our Community’s best interests?

Can our Proistameno identify the “pertinent canons” with which we must all be harmonious?

AND NOW FOR THE LAST ACT

The Metropolitan’s Letter - The Proistameno's Letter


The truth is now known. The letter concealed by the Proistameno is finally shown to the Community. Why is the accompanying Proistameno’s letter undated? When was it prepared?

Why does the Proistameno’s letter say that the letter was sent by the Metropolitan “... to the Parish Council and me ...” Can he not read and understand the third line of the addressee block? The “spin” that the Proistameno is putting on the Metropolitan’s letter is further fostering delusion and deception. The Metropolitan’s letter was addressed to the ENTIRE COMMUNITY. The Proistameno sought to keep it secret from the community.

This Proistameno must go.

This ongoing deception is part of his concept of “confidentiality” that he alone has imposed upon the Parish Council. It is the reason that he recommended that I be removed from the Parish Council, because I refused to sign any ill-reasoned and ill-advised confidentiality agreement. The Proistameno has no basis for imposing a muzzle upon the Parish Council. A search of the UPRs clearly reveals that no regulation exists for a confidentiality agreement. It is said that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This Proistameno must go.

Why did this Proistameno discuss the very same issues contained in the Metropolitan’s letter about three weeks before its present release, from the pulpit of Prophet Elias Church. Was he preparing the audience? At that time he failed to tell his captive audience that the Metropolitan wrote the letter. He failed to tell them that he voted for the Resolution. He knew about the letter and he purposefully failed to disclose it. He was a party to the resolution's passage and failed to disclose it. At that time he appeared to be the author of the two-church, 10-member committee provision appointed to split the community. The deceptions keep coming. We need transparency, not gamesmanship. The Proistameno does not operate with transparency.

This Proistameno must go.

Nowhere in either letter is any authority for the appointment of this committee cited. Why? What are we to believe as to what an “unchristian attitude” is if the Metropolitan’s and this Proistameno’s views are the only authoritative source. Why? If we are errant in our ways of thinking about our Community’s life, can we not look to the writings of the Holy Fathers ? Can we not be guided by the edicts of past Holy Synods? Can we be not guided by the writings of the Archdiocese as well as the Metropolis? Are there any other examples within the United States Archdiocese jurisdiction where a similar situation has arisen?

This Proistameno must go.

Those who attended the Clergy-Laity Assembly reported that the referenced resolution was described by the Metropolitan as “non-binding.” What has transpired since its passage to cause the Metropolitan to resurrect it and to put it into effect? The Metropolitan reportedly said at that time that he would not enforce any resolution, unless the Community wanted to study the issue. What has changed? Why is the Metropolitan asking for the matter to be resolved by the Clergy rather than by the laity? Whose ox is being gored?

This Proistameno must go.

The Community is very upset about the Metropolitan’s letter and the accompanying undated Proistameno’s letter. The letter merits no consideration. It has no legal basis whatsoever. Those who advocate as to the legitimacy of either should be able to demonstrate the legal/religious/moral/Christian basis” upon which they can be predicated. upon which it can be predicated. No parishioner, should he or she be asked, should agree to serve upon any committee about splitting our UNITED COMMUNITY.

This Proistameno must go.

In my opinion the Metropolis’ Clergy Laity Assembly has no force of law and cannot pass any binding resolution. We have and we believe in one Ecclesiastical Authority. It is only the Archdiocese. We made a binding compact with the Archdiocese in 1964. A schism in this Community should not be permitted to occur.

THIS PROISTAMENO MUST GO.

Nick J. Colessides
Attorney at Law
466 South 400 East, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-3325

Friday, July 6, 2007

Some Questions!

Well, all you Brothers and Sisters of the Salt Lake City area whose higher level of priority is the "almighty dollar" , have you been dictated to enough to take over control of your community?

There are some major questions that need to be addressed.

1- Why was a letter addressed to The Greek Orthodox Community from the Metropolitan and dated May, 31 2007 finally made public to the community on July 6, 2007?

2- Who represented the community at the Clergy-Laity Assembly of our holy Metropolis that was held the first part of May 2007?

3- How was this representative selected and based on a unanimous vote on a resolution effecting the Salt Lake City Community without even getting an overall opinion from the community?

4- Why after almost 40 years has separate parishes become such an issue? Is the present hierarchy of the church more informed and schooled in these matters than the hierarchy that originally granted Salt Lake City the dual church one parish scenario in the first place?

5- Why are the clergy conducting the selection of the committee to do the survey of the community?

6- Whose brain wave was it to have Holy Trinity own all the Salt Lake City property, apartments and parking lots and Prophet Elias all the Holladay property?

7- Why do we have a church board and of what value are they to the community if they don’t know what the clergy is doing and what decisions they are making?

A concerned member of the community.

Jim Kastanis

Thursday, July 5, 2007

L’eglise, c’est moi? The Etymology and Meaning of “Ekklesia”

From the recent, and not-so-recent, correspondences of our clergy and hierarchy it would be easy for one to conclude that without them there is no church, no ekklesia. One might also conclude that the ekklesia is the physical structure we enter to hear the Liturgy and partake of the Sacraments. The conclusion would not be accurate.

Ekklesia is derived from two Greek words, “ek”, meaning out of, and “kalein”, to call, summon or invite. Ekklesia means a convocation, gathering, congregation, or an assembly. "Ekklesia tou demou" – meeting of the citizens – in ancient Athens was the formal gathering where citizens of the polis (city) assembled to decide upon the affairs of their city. Ekklesia in the New Testament is the people of the City of God, not just part of them, the clergy, monks, or bishops, but all the faithful. From this meaning emerged the designation of local churches – ekklesiai. These were the whole communities of the faithful in various cities, and again not a part of them. In his writings to various churches, Saint Paul defined ekklesia, describing what the church truly is. In one such instance he wrote, "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints..." – in other words, to all the faithful, to the ekklesia.

Christ said that His church would be built upon Peter, not because all were to henceforth unquestioningly obey Peter, but because Peter showed faith in Christ as revealed by God. The rock upon which the Church was built was that of anyone with faith. All people who have faith in Christ are the rock of the Church – not only the clergy – but also the laity, the citizens of the City of God. In his epistles, St. Peter referred to the laity as the "Royal Priesthood".

After the Council of Florence in 1439, which falsely united the Roman West with the Orthodox East, one man stood alone in his objection and refusal to sign that document of union. That man, St. Mark of Ephesus, remained steadfast in his faith, upholding the proper traditions and teachings of the ekklesia, resisting the rigidity of the papal structure. He saw the union with Rome for what it was – a union of convenience for purely political and economic gain. As Metropolitan of Ephesus, St. Mark endured much and suffered greatly for standing alone in his position. However, the laity (derived from the word "laos" - the people), the "Royal Priesthood" stood with him, holding fast to the traditions handed down to them, and ultimately this false union was rejected.

We should remember also that Christ came in the form of God as man preaching the gospel of love, and He was crucified for this. Christ did not advocate putting non-believers to death, did not force anyone to obey Him, did not indulge in secret agendas, did not excommunicate. There was and is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.

We
are the Church. This community as a whole is the Church. Our priests, monks and bishops are not the whole Church; they are part of it. To hear them lately, one might think they ARE the Church, demanding blind and absolute obedience and acquiescence. L’eglise, c’est moi! In our specific case, the clergy and hierarchy have confused the two consecrated buildings where we worship as their “brides” and thus they claim, on the basis of a false analogy, "un-Christian polygamy". Those edifices are not their “bride”, are not this parish, are not this Church. We, the Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City, the citizens of this “City of God”, ARE the ekklesia.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

More Smoke and Mirrors: The Accompanying Letter from the Local Regime Leader

We have addressed the long-ago received, but only recently released, letter of the Metropolitan. We will now address our Proistameno's accompanying letter, foregoing the usual pleasantries along with commentary already made regarding the specious Clergy/Laity justifications. "His Eminence has asked Father Matthew and me to establish a committee to begin dialogue and to gather information about the possibility of having two separate Parishes in Salt Lake City." (emphasis added) Anyone having read the Metropolitan's letter can easily discern that what our Proistameno reports is not the case at all. This is NOT what the Metropolitan has asked of our assigned clergy.

The Metropolitan was devastatingly clear in saying that the aforementioned committee will be formed to "deliberate in a Christian manner how the two parishes WILL SEPARATE, much like a daughter leaves her mother in order to marry." (emphasis added) No mention is made in the Metropolitan's letter of beginning a dialogue, of gathering information or that any other possibilities exist or would be acceptable.

The Metropolitan makes no mention as to the number of people who will serve on the proposed committee, yet our Proistameno has indicated there will be five "members" from each church along with the assigned clergy. "The President of the Parish Council or his representative will be an observer on this Committee." Again, no directive to this effect from Denver, so it appears our Proistameno is making up the rules as he goes along. Reverend, please clarify who can be considered the "representative" of the Parish Council President and what does an observer actually do - sit and watch? Whose interests is he presumably protecting? Also, how does one go about being considered for membership on this committee? The stewards of this community do not belong to Holy Trinity or Prophet Elias - they belong to Holy Trinity AND Prophet Elias. It might be accurate to say that people who mainly attend services at Holy Trinity and Prophet Elias will be selected; it is NOT accurate to state that "members" from each will be selected. We are members of the Greek Orthodox Community of Greater Salt Lake City, and not of Holy Trinity or Prophet Elias per se. It is this unique quality - one which our youth also embraces - that makes this community extraordinary. Where we see virtue, our clergy, who are supposed to love us, see vice. Nice bridegrooms. It should be interesting to see the Proistameno's committee composition.

The next statement provokes further bewilderment: "For ten years, rumors have persisted about whether or not there should be two Parishes in Salt Lake City. These rumors have created suspicion and confusion; this committee will sort this all out and report their findings to His Eminence." Our Proistameno has been in our community for less than five years, yet he is omniscient in knowing what "rumors" had circulated before his arrival. Even more amazing is his knowledge that these "rumors" concerned the splitting of our community. It is our contention that the purported "rumors" have not created the "suspicion and confusion" that exists in our community today. These stem rather from the devious, underhanded, threatening, fear-mongering tactics engaged in by this Proistameno and abetted by the Metropolitan. Whether this committee will sort this all out and report their findings to the Metropolitan remains to be seen. What we do know is this committee has not been charged with that task from Denver. The charge from Denver is far more nefarious.

The remainder of our Proistamenos' letter speaks of the committee creating "Christian" dialogue, gathering information, educating, and giving reports all in an unofficial, non-decision making manner. From reading the Metropolitan's letter all of the aforementioned is useless - a bromide to help us digest that which we should not even have to swallow. The decision has been made so why pretend to even consider our input? If the "Christian" behavior of this committee is to imitate the same "Christian" behavior of our Metropolitan and Proistameno toward us in the recent past, then we would be better served without it. It is time that this Proistameno go elsewhere to promote whatever agenda he favors to someone else, after all, the Church has become very good at spreading problems broadly; we've had enough of this nonsense.

We were sent two letters that theoretically attempt to explain the same procedure and process. What we actually read, however, are two letters explaining two different processes. Our Proistameno has been holding the Metropolitan's letter for over a month. It is noteworthy that the Metropolitan's letter was addressed to the Proistameno, to the Parish Council, AND to the Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City! By what right did this Proistameno take it upon himself to withhold the contents of this letter to the Parish Council, who, as usual, acquiesced, but also to withhold a letter that was DIRECTLY addressed to the members of this community! Be that as it may, we're used to these conceits by now. It is clear that he has had time to read it over and over again. We wonder how, after reading the Metropolitan's letter, our Proistameno can send us the letter he did, once again insulting everyone's intelligence. Two different letters coming from two different planets. More smoke and mirrors all around.

Now All the Fixes ARE REALLY IN: The Letter We've Been Waiting For

The long-awaited and ever-secret letter from the Metropolitan regarding the splitting of our community should be in all our homes in the days to come. Along with that letter we also have the great honor of being addressed by our Proistameno, who it should be noted deliberately did not send or provide the letter to our Parish Council, or to the members of this community, to whom the letter was also addressed. As we did with the recent letter of the Parish Council, we will go through each letter and offer our observations. We begin with the letter from Denver that our Proistameno has kept hidden from his flock.

We can see that this letter was written on May 31, 2007 and is only now being made public. Even more troubling is that this letter was addressed to the Proistameno, the Parish Council and to the Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City. If the purposeful withholding of this letter doesn't raise the ire of our Parish Council, we are all in trouble. The letter was addressed to all the aforementioned. No one had any right to conceal its contents from either the Parish Council or the community as a whole.

His Eminence states that a resolution was passed at the recent Clergy/Laity conference of this Metropolis in Oklahoma City some three weeks before the infamous letter's date. We must remember that Clergy/Laity conferences are events organized by the Metropolis. The Metropolis Council's president is the Metropolitan. The Metropolis Council is comprised of people who are hand-picked by the Metropolitan; in other words his most staunch supporters. The agenda for these conferences is dictated by the Metropolis. It isn't much of a stretch to conclude that the Metropolitan orchestrated the passing of this resolution. With all the issues currently facing the church, it is mind-boggling that this issue was even discussed, let alone a priority. For nearly 40 years we've existed in our present condition, and, as far as we can tell, there has been no discernable harm to Orthodoxy. The harm has not come from the laity, in fact, but from the dysfunctional hierarchy that embraces denial and secrecy. We can all be proud to know that the Byzantine mentality, sadly its deviousness, but not its genius, is alive and well today.

In reading the resolution it is clear that it is expressly addressed to our community. The Metropolitan writes, "On the basis of this resolution which was passed unanimously by the delegates, the members of our Greek Orthodox Community in Greater Salt Lake City have been given a challenge to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church." Those well-meaning delegates have no idea of the history of our community. They have no idea how the late Archbishop Iakovos was adamant that this community remain united. (He didn't seem to think the idea was anti-canoncical!) With the exception of those delegates representing our community, those well-meaning delegates don't live in our community, don't know our parishioners, don't know how our youth feel. Those well-meaning delegates were presumptuous in thinking they know first-hand our experiences in this community. If we have not been "in harmony with the teachings of the church" how is it that we have remained a part of the Metropolis and Archdiocese all these years?

The Metropolitan's directive in this letter is clear, and it resembles nothing our Parish Council told us in their recent "explanation letter." "I therefore ask Father Michael Kouremetis and Father Matthew Gilbert to work together and in Christian love to work out the fulfillment of the resolution with the members of the community." (emphasis added) Nowhere does he say that the "feasibility of having two independent parishes" be explored. He clearly directs that the Clergy/Laity resolution be fulfilled. So much for working together for the betterment of our community.

Of equal "comfort" are the Metropolitan's words regarding "un-Christian polygamy" of which we are apparently guilty. The Metropolitan has labeled many things "un-Christian". Before Mr. Colessides' ouster from the life of the church he was accused of making "un-Christian" comments, without the benefit of being told what they were. Now we are reminded of our "un-Christian polygamy" that has existed in the life of this community for the past 38-plus years. We are also told of the "uncanonical" situation that purportedly exists here, without the benefit of being informed of which canons we have been violating for these 38-plus years. For all these years the canons were not an issue. Now our Proistameno and Metropolitan throw the term "uncanonical" around like candy.

He also accuses "numerous Greek Orthodox Christians in the Salt Lake City area" of having the concept of the "almighty dollar" first in their hearts and minds and on a higher level of priority than their faith, once again without benefit of explanation. We would like to remind the Metropolitan there is only ONE knows what is in our hearts and minds and IT IS NOT HIM!! How insulting for him to infer knowing what is in our hearts or minds! From letters that have been received in the past from the Metropolitan, the same could easily be said of him. Do the words pot and kettle come to mind here? The clergy are supposed to reflect God's love toward mankind. Instead we see threats, deceptions, false accusations, Christ's sacraments wielded as weapons and denial of any responsibility when our precious children are at risk from those who are to be the example of God's love.

Returning to the specific subject at hand, the Metropolitan mentions the formation of a committee not to study the "feasibility" of having two independent parishes but to "deliberate in a Christian manner how (emphasis added) the two parishes will separate much like a daughter leaves her mother in order to marry." Lest we are lead to believe that we parishioners are in charge of nothing, the metropolitan corrects our thinking by stating, "It is a given that the parishioners are in charge of the community properties." He continues, "It should not be difficult for an understanding to take place and a solution reached." Having great confidence in our ability to reach a solution the metropolitan can't resist offering us the solution that has been proposed by those few who are spearheading this effort to split. "It was told to me that one option would be for the Holy Trinity Cathedral to continue to have all the church property in the city plus the apartment buildings and the parking lots, while the parishioners who attend Prophet Elias parish would have only the parish property in Holladay." Well gee, we wonder who it is that told you this was an option? Not to worry though because, "If this is to be your decision. I am willing to approve it." No, Your Eminence, this is not to be our decision. Will you approve that?

The time has come for those of us who oppose the heavy-handed, secret tactics that have been used to beat us over the head for the last five years to stand together and fight for what we believe. The fact that this Proistameno would not distribute a letter sent by the Metropolitan to the Parish Council and the community is insulting. The agenda is clear and the secrecy (not only with this issue but with nearly every other) is utterly unbecoming a clergyman. Our Parish Council needs to acquire the fortitude necessary to put a stop to this behavior immediately. Further, it is time that a transfer is seriously considered; this Proistameno has no credibility left whatsoever. Need we remind our Metropolitan and his lackeys that without the laity there is no Church?