“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


Saturday, July 7, 2007

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?


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.


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

No comments: