“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, October 30, 2007

How Do Our Leaders Compare?

"Hence Christ also said of 'the good shepherd,' not that he is honored and served, but that he 'lays down his life for his sheep.' This is the meaning of leadership, this the art of being a shepherd, ignoring one's own concerns and being preoccupied with those of one's people. What a physician is, after all, so is a leader - or, rather, more than a physician. While the physician, you see, procures people's welfare through skill, the leader does it through risk to himself. Christ also did this, being scourged, crucified, suffering countless torments."

St. John Chrysostom

Sunday, October 28, 2007

To Survey or Not to Survey ... and to What End?

The long-promised survey has been mailed. We all have until November 12 to return our survey for it to be "counted" - counted toward what end? Under normal circumstances, TOCB would undertake an analysis of the positions in favor of and opposed to the "split". Alas, the circumstances surrounding this issue are far from normal.

Rewind several months back to the "informational" meetings held in the board room of Prophet Elias "unbeknownst" to the now-proistameno only of Prophet Elias. Consider also the formation of a hand-picked "split committee" that requested a letter from the Metropolitan stating he would abide by the decision of the community before embarking on this "information gathering" mission. Looking back further into history we witnessed the formation of the Prophet Elias Philoptochos. Fast forward to today, we now have two proistamenoi, one at each church. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to discern the next "logical" step.

Our parish council president reported at the last meeting that the letter from the Metropolitan stating he would abide by the decision of the community has not come. Apparently this president and the parish council suffer from a deplorable lack of curiosity. Or, is it possible they know that it will not come, but they will go through with the mechanics just to save some face? Isn't it painfully obvious, even to the most benighted parish council member that there is now no need for such a letter when the decision to split has already been made? Will this "information gathering" exercise in which we have been asked to participate in the end mean nothing?

TOCB is NOT advocating non-participation in this exercise in futility. Quite the contrary, we encourage everyone to please return their survey before the deadline. We believe the numbers will overwhelmingly show support for the wisdom of our forefathers to remain united.

Please express your preference and return your ballot.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

An Open Letter from Jim Kastanis to the Parish Council President

Moderator's Note: We are posting with Mr. Kastanis' permission. As always we have sought to keep the author's original emphasis in his writing when converting letters to html format.

October 23, 2007

Mr. Nick Varanakis President
Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Dear Nick:

I have read the directive dated October 9, 2007 from Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver. He has made the announcement that Fr. Michael Kouremetis as the Proistamenos only of Prophet Elias Parish and Fr. Mathew Gilbert as the Proistamenos of Holy Trinity Cathedral.

I and the rest of the community need some clarification.

1- What is a Proistamenos? When I was President of the community and also on many additional boards, the community had a HEAD PRIEST. When did it change from a HEAD PRIEST to a Proistamenos and what if any are the differences?

2- Fr. Michael is Proistamenos of Prophet Elias Parish and Fr. Mathew of Holy Trinity Cathedral. What is the difference between a Parish and a Cathedral?

3- Based on the blessings of the archdiocese, The Greater Community of Salt Lake City was given the authority to have ONE COMMUNITY with TWO CHURCHES. Until this directive is rescinded in writing to the Salt Lake Community it is valid.
Therefore you as President along with the signatures of all the board members should send a letter to the Metropolitan rejecting his directive appointing two proistamenoi and abiding with directive of the archdiocese previously given to the community. We are a single community with two churches and we only need one head priest to administer to members of both churches.

Respectfully,


Jim Kastanis

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Nick Colessides Responds to John Kaloudis


Nick J. Colessides
Attorney at Law
466 South 400 East, # 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-3325
USA
-----------
Telephone: 801/ 521-4441
Tele-copier: 801/ 521-4452
E-Mail Address: njcolessides@msn.com

October 20, 2007

Via e-mail

Mr. John Kaloudis

Dear John,

I read with interest your letter to the Blog. I understand your perspective. I would like to set forth the following random thoughts. My purpose is to have an open and honest discussion and is not motivated by rancor or negativity. In the final analysis my words and actions shall be judged by our Savior.

The issue of negativity as discussed in your letter is correct; I agree with you that there is no need or room for negativity in our community; there is no necessity to be negative when one discusses what is appropriate in our community. My opinion is that the anger that the Clergy’s actions have created, has resulted in so much of the negativity that is found on the Blog. But as you can also see there have been a great deal of postings requesting “transparency” and “help;” all to no avail. I agree that all discussions must be positive. From my personal perspective, the resultant negativity expressed in the Blog, is due to the continuous inappropriate directives/actions of the Clergy as repeatedly applied to this community.

I agree with you that our church is hierarchical and not subject to “democratic” processes, rules, or concepts. I agree with you that when it comes to dealing with religious matters, the Clergy’s word is the penultimate judgment.

The issue at hand is that when the Clergy imposes sanctions in non-religious, non-dogmatic, non-canonical matters and settings, the Clergy then forfeits its immunity from criticism. The Clergy, no matter what their hierarchical status, cannot have it both ways. My perspective is my own first hand experience.

The Metropolitan sua sponte decided to do two things. In violation of the Uniform Parish Bylaws he removed me from my elective position on the Parish Council; and, without an opportunity to discuss with me my “transgression”, he imposed a five-year prohibition on my participation in the religious sacraments. (The Metropolitan rescinded the religious sanctions during the summer; he continued the prohibition of my participation in the “parish council” for a period of 3 years. In my view there is no such thing as being a little pregnant.) I vividly recall on Holy Wednesday last, asking Father Matthew whether he would administer Holy Unction; I remember well his negative response. He said that I had to resolve the issue with the Metropolitan; Fr. Matthew was prohibited by the Metropolitan to give me Holy Unction. Prior to that time I had communicated with the Metropolitan and stated in writing that I had obeyed his directive; I had availed myself of the sacrament of confession. He elected to respond by asking me to forward to him a letter from my “Spiritual Father” that the Prayer of Absolution was read over me; he did not think that the matter of the availability of the Holy Sacraments to me during the upcoming Holy Week, was important; maybe it was not to him, ... but it was very important to me. Eventually he removed the religious sanctions.

Why is the biblical admonition of Matthew 18:15-16 applicable to me and not to the Clergy? Did the Clergy have an obligation to discuss the matters with me as per the biblical citation? or did the Clergy get offended when I quoted from Acts 9.5? I am not as well-schooled in the biblical sayings as you or some of the Clergy are. I do believe however, that Christ did say on one occasion "Ο αvαμάρτητoς πρώτoς τov λίθov βαλέτω." Whether in a religious or a secular setting the truth is always universal. The truth is the same for the Clergy as it is for the laity.

We must all be accountable for our actions; we must all obey the biblical strictures. And, we must ALL turn the other cheek; Matthew, chapter 5. Why did the Metropolitan think it appropriate that I should be victimized in this community? Why did the Metropolitan choose to be punitive? Reading the correspondence, it appears that it was my refusal to apologize that caused my punishment. How banal ! How childish! Should the “truth” have been the issue for judgment, rather than the need for an apology to satisfy the Clergy’s egos? You know John, the concept of “infallibility” is not an Orthodox Christian concept.

My removal from the elective office violated the Uniform Parish Bylaws (“UPRs”). The UPRs contain the governance of the community. Why did the Clergy disregard their application? Why should the Clergy be immune from the proper application of the UPRs? Do I have a recourse?

The second point of your letter deals with anonymous letters and criticisms. I agree with you. You can see from everything that I have ever written, in the Blog or in any other forum, it has always been signed by me; copies where appropriate were sent to those to whom my writing were directed. However, there is one valid point on the anonymity issue. When anonymity is invoked it is because of the threat or fear of reprisal. Real or perceived. The only time when anonymity is acceptable, is when one does not wish to have the same type of fortune that I have endured in the hands of the Clergy.

On the third point. You may be offended by the title of the Blog. The title is not meant to offend any party. The title is meant to express the hurt and the pain that this Proistameno has caused to a lot of people through his actions. His entire ministry in this community has been full of half truths, innuendo, falsehoods; and, his typical raising of his hands toward the sky and
proclaiming that he has nothing to do with my expulsion from the Parish Council, and nothing to do with my “punishment.” His ministry in this community has as its predicate that the Parish Council is here to report to him; to assist him; and all the other bromides he emits. Humility may not be his strongest point. I believe that this community needs Clergy who view their ministry as a “calling;” ... not merely a job.

In connection with the events that surround my punishment, there is nothing that I have said, or have committed to writing, that it was not true. It is true because it was factually correct and accurate. I do not think that Fr. Kouremetis can make the same statement.

And lastly, let me suggest that I do not view that the Church as a stock ownership proposition. I already submitted in the beginning of this letter that I fully recognize the Church for what it is. It is theocratic institution not subject to democratic processes. However, when the Church through its Clergy, operates the secular part of our community as a theocracy, I would think that we can all agree that it is not proper.

The thing that is totally absent from your discourse is the issue of unity. Maybe that should be left for another day. Nevertheless the matter is very simple. No member of the Clergy should impugn the concept of the necessity for the unity of our community and our parish. Those issues are neither canonical nor dogmatic.

In the final analysis the only thing that really matters is that of “fairness.” In the “secular” setting is the Clergy dealing with our community in a fair manner ? Reading the Blog, it appears that it does not.

Best regards,


Nick J. Colessides

Friday, October 19, 2007

“Οτι κάνεις, λάβεις – καρδιά μην σου πονέσει”

The title of this blog is one of my late father's favorite Greek sayings: “Οτι κάνεις, λάβεις – καρδιά μην σου πονέσει.” The literal translation would be “what you give, you get - don't let it break your heart.” The Biblical one would be: “As you sow, so shall you reap.”

John Kaloudis provided an interesting perspective on the events currently transpiring in our community. His commentary provided food for thought. I would however point out that no person involved with this blog undertook to do so lightly. Our actions have been based upon a profound dismay at the heavy-handed wielding of ecclesiastical power in the non-ecclesiastical realm. The commentaries are the result of the ongoing marginalization of the laity in face of numerous events that have transpired in this community within the past several months.

Unquestionably, we all revere and honor the calling, the robes, the office. In turn, we have the right to expect that the men who respond to the calling, who wear the robes, who hold the office, will hold themselves to the highest standards and exhibit behaviors that inspire respect and admiration.

The situation with Nick Colessides regarding the Proistameno (who continues to claim he had nothing to do with the imposition of excommunication despite ample evidence to the contrary) and our Metropolitan was the instructive case. To the comment that the criticisms contained in the blog are cowardly, I would reply that many of our moderators and others in the community feel that they have joined an unequal struggle. Please remember what happened a few years ago when the Metropolitan dismissed the parish council. Members of that council had an audience with him in Denver, left feeling that there had been a reasonable discussion and that some understanding had been reached, only to learn as they landed in Salt Lake that they had been dismissed. Similar instances have occurred throughout this Metropolis and in others throughout the country.

Unlike the clergy of my youth, today's clergy doesn’t deign to discuss. When the clergy doesn’t like what it hears, it cries “protestantism”, or speaks of un-Christian, non-Orthodox behavior. It now resorts to excommunication as punishment and to instill fear in other communicants. Rather than provide an example of reason and discourse, wielding their power through Christ’s Love and Logos, our clergymen now seemingly choose to wield a medieval intimidation – ruling with the fear that one MAN (who is after all fallible, and not a pope) has the power to cut the laity from the Body and Blood of Christ. A very potent weapon indeed in the hands of the clergy!

What is perplexing and disappointing is that our Metropolitan excommunicated a member who served this community faithfully for forty years. This was done without even the benefit of the discourse Mr. Kaloudis suggests, and that our clergy ought to be espousing as well. After all, discourse is a two-way proposition. Amazingly, at almost the very same time, our Metropolitan was vigorously defending a pedophile priest, refusing to 'rush to judgment' in that case so that the man, upon his death, could be buried with the full honors of a clergyman. In doing so the Metropolitan trivialized the entire problem of pedophile priests and the lasting pain they inflict upon our innocent children, when it was quite clear, even to the regional and national hierarchy that the priest was, sadly, guilty.

As for the parish council, I grew up with many of these gentlemen and, as individuals I respect their intelligence and their integrity. Collectively, however, I feel they have been completely cowed and I feel badly that they are working hard trying to serve their church at a time when the clergy demands that the laity merely “pay, pray and obey”. Whether I agree with their stances or not, I have never questioned any council member's dedication; I do question their acquiescence in the face of so much dissembling, with such provocative disrespect for the laity, and with such obvious insistence on one standard for the clergy, another for the rest of us. I don’t think that there is any other context within their lives where they would stand for this behavior.

Further, and for the record, when I write my blogs solely, I sign them. My name is all over this site, along with names of others. There are numerous others throughout the community who are deeply concerned and who collaborate with us and do not wish to be named, lest they suffer a punishment similar to Nick’s. We’ve agreed in such case to post as moderators. We do not publish, and have not to the best of my knowledge, published any readers' comments to any blog (including an “Amen!” we received anonymously to Mr. Kaloudis' blog right after its posting) without someone’s full real name.

As for the objection to the blog’s title, I am sorry if it offends. And yes, we know the Church belongs to Christ. And no, we do not seek to take it away from Him. (This last argument is highly condescending.) WE are the Church. We ask for a clergy that:

  • respects its flock by not accusing them of “worshipping the almighty dollar” when their clear interest is solid stewardship;

  • works with its parishioners and parish councils in a collegial and concilliar manner and honors democratic processes on matters related to sound governance;

  • values and PROTECTS its children and youth;

  • adheres to its stated and implicit standards consistently – whether with fellow clergy, laity or within the community at large.

We, the members of a community of concerned Greek Orthodox Christians in this valley want our church as we have known it. We do not consider ourselves “stockholders” or political constituents, but rather responsible Orthodox stewards who are passionate about our Church and our Community, and who are ever-mindful of those immigrants who came before us who built these churches in ONE unified community of the faithful.

- Barbara Billinis Colessides

An Open Letter from John Kaloudis

We received this letter from Mr. Kaloudis via our e-mail address. In accordance with his wishes we are posting it.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Upon the suggestion of a close friend, I was directed to this blog site. I am appalled and dismayed to see the many negative, slanderous and un-Christ like remarks made about our Metropolitan, Father Michael and members of the parish council. I realize that people have the right to have, and to express their opinions but this level of negativity and personal attacks far exceeds the boundaries and restraints we should attempt to live within as Orthodox Christians.

The first question that I ask of those individuals who publicly make slanderous statements against Father Michael and others is, have you sat down and spoken to him about your concerns as directed in the gospel of Matthew 18: 15-16, “moreover, if you have a grievance against your brother, go and tell him his fault between him and you alone.” If one truly wishes to address a problem from a Christian perspective, he or she is required to directly confront the individual rather than viciously attacking the person from a distance as is the case with a “blog”. This is the biblical form of “conflict resolution.”

The second question that I would like to ask is why do individuals have the right to anonymously insult members of the clergy? Again, we are required by scripture to be accountable for every word that proceeds from our mouths, Matthew 12; 36-37. To hide behind anonymity or the title “moderator” is irresponsible and an act of cowardice.

Finally, I am offended by the mere title of the blog, “take our Church back.” This title reflects a total misunderstanding of Orthodox Christian theology and ecclesiology. From whom would we wish to take the Church back? The Church belongs to Jesus Christ and to no none else. Are we to assume that individuals from within the parish want to take the Church from Him? It is our responsibility as Orthodox Christians to put ourselves and the governance of the Church in submission to Jesus Christ, James 4:7. An appropriate name for the blog is “put the Church under Christ”. The Church is a place where His will is to be done not an arena for a power struggle as this current title of the blog reflects.

Ephesians 1:22-23 states that “all things are to be put under His feet (Christ) and He is to be the head over all things in the Church which is His body; the fullness of Him that fills all in all.”

Unfortunately, many people in our community view the Church as a business in which they own stock and can control the direction of the Church through democratic process. I ask that each of you prayerfully consider the issues that confront our parish. “Do not lean on your own understanding but in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths. Be not wise in your own conceit. Fear the Lord and depart from evil.” Proverbs 3:5-7.

In His Service,
John Kaloudis

"Sowing More Discord" - Some Thoughts from the "Protestants"

The letter from our Metropolitan was delivered by fax on October 12 and will ultimately be distributed at both churches on October 21, in addition to being included in the November issue of the Messenger. In spite of the accusation that the "spirit of Protestantism" has infiltrated our community, the Metropolitan bases his assessment yet again on misinformation.

The phone calls the Metropolitan refers to were made only after the parishioners in question spoke with both assigned clergy. The then proistameno (the now-proistameno SOLELY of Prophet Elias) knew that the Metropolitan would be called and tacitly gave his approval. Therefore, the authority of then-proistameno of the entire Greek Orthodox community of Salt Lake city (the now-proistemeno SOLELY of Prophet Elias) was in no way usurped. If he claims otherwise, he is not telling the truth.

For the record, the Metropolitan did not speak with those who are mentioned in his recent letter. He only received voice messages. Instead of speaking only to the now-proistameno of Prophet Elias and perhaps LISTENING to a VARIETY of members from his flock, rather than pontificating blindly, he would finally come to see the full picture. On second thought, why would we want to know all the details from all parties involved when knowing only half the details better serves our agenda?

What is happening in this community is reprehensible on many levels. We have ourselves to blame for allowing the lies and deception to continue. The now-proistameno SOLELY of Prophet Elias said at the last parish council meeting that "we (the community) have become a laughingstock throughout the country." We would only ask, "under whose command have we become a laughingstock?"

Thursday, October 18, 2007

OUTRAGEOUS!

The trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide. In this sense, truth, even if it does not prevail in public, possesses an ineradicable primacy over all falsehoods.
- Hannah Arendt

Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies.
- F.M. Conford
Well, well, well! So our current hierarch shows his true colors and indicates where he has been heading all along. It is no secret that Metropolitan Isaiah has had nothing but contempt for the arrangement we have had, with prior, more reasonable, more compassionate hierarchical approval, for so long in this city: an arrangement that was designed deliberately by our parents and grandparents to promote harmony and unity.

Our former hierarchs did not scream "Protestantism" every time they heard something they did not agree with; what the current regime throughout this country now espouses and seeks to implement by marginalizing the laity to so great a degree is actually more a Roman Catholic model, and we've all seen how well that has worked.

Further, since the current hierarch could not influence a majority opinion through his puppet, our esteemed Proistamenos, (now apparently the esteemed Proistamenos solely of Prophet Elias), or through a spineless Parish Council, to accomplish this split, he is now doing so by fiat.

Yesterday it was two Philoptochos chapters!

Today it is two Proistamenoi!

Tomorrow it will be two Parish Councils!


What we have here are the final phases of a τετελεσμένο γεγονός – a fait accompli – a done deal.

This community must not tolerate such an outrage.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Sowing More Discord: Yet Another "About-Face" from Denver

(Moderator's Note: As always we have not edited the original document, written on the letterhead of the then Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver, beyond converting it to html for Internet publication and have tried to the extent possible to maintain original formatting.)

GREEK ORTHODOX METROPOLIS OF DENVER

October 9, 2007

Reverend Michael Kouremetis
The Esteemed Parish Council
Holy Trinity Cathedral
Prophet Elias Greek Orthodox Church
c/o 5335 South Highland Drive
Holladay, UT 84117

Beloved in the Lord,


It appears that the spirit of Protestantism seems to want to enter into the life of the parish. Protestantism is when there is no hierarchical structure in the church and anyone can ask or demand whatever one wishes.

In our holy Church from the Day of Pentecost the hierarchical structure has always been honored. Our Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest Who has established three ranks of the clergy: those of Deacon, Priest and Bishop. Within each rank there are responsibilities regarding how the people are served in their needs. The deacon knows what responsibilities he has, as demonstrated by your devoted deacon, Father Anatoli Kiriev. The priest also knows what authority he has regarding his responsibilities and when he should contact his superior, his bishop.

For example, if a young couple is planning a wedding and wish to invite another priest from another parish, if the priest is from the same metropolis, the priest does not have to receive permission from his bishop. If the priest is from another metropolis, the priest from the other metropolis must receive permission to come into the metropolis from the local bishop; but he also has to have permission from his own bishop to go to the other metropolis.

Keeping this example in mind, lately I have been receiving telephone calls from certain individuals in Salt Lake City who wish to invite a priest who is not assigned to the local parish to speak at Sunday School classes. I am not certain if the request is for Holy Trinity or Prophet Elias Church. In our local hierarchical structure such calls are circumventing the authority of the local priest by calling the bishop.

The head of each parish is the priest. He is responsible for all aspects of parish life, including religious education. Because of this conflict, I realize that in having one Proistamenos for both churches has created confusion. Also, recently when Father Kouremetis was away, and a special problem arose at the Holy Trinity Cathedral which should have been addressed by the Proistamenos, there was confusion regarding the solution of the problem.

As your bishop and metropolitan, I do not mind being contacted in order to assist in resolving issues. But at the same time, when it comes to matters of internal governance in which the bishop's involvement can be misconstrued as interference, the problem should be solved internally. Here I am speaking of local matters and not of the organizational structure of the Church as patriarchate, metropolis, archdiocese, diocese and parish.

Therefore, in order to have a clear understanding of how each church/parish should be administered, I find it necessary at this time to recognize Father Michael Kouremetis as the Proistamenos only of Prophet Elias Parish and Father Matthew Gilbert as the Proistamenos of Holy Trinity Cathedral. I will send letters out to this effect very soon. This will mean the both Father Kouremetis and Father Gilbert must be at every parish council meeting and at all general assemblies for them to be valid.

In regard to inviting clergy of other persuasions or other canonical Orthodox priests for lectures and presentation, permission must be given by the local Proistamenos. If he has any questions or doubts, it is he who would call the bishop, and not anyone who wishes to usurp his authority.

In the final analysis no canonical Orthodox priest has any business in a Sunday School setting, especially when the Divine Liturgy is being celebrated. A Protestant minister can do this because he does not believe that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord. However, if an Orthodox priest does this, people will begin to ask if he really had the vocation for the holy priesthood.

With Paternal Blessings,

[signature]

+ Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

Monday, October 15, 2007

Con Skedros Offers Some Historical Perspective on the Community's Issues

Moderator's Note: With Con Skedros' permission, we have converted his thoughts into html for posting, keeping wherever possible the formatting from his original hardcopy text. We have included the original emphases where Mr. Skedros felt there should be emphasis.

October 4, 2007

On October 22, 2001, at the Parish Council Meeting a motion by Yanni Armaou and seconded by Basil Chelemes requesting a roll call vote by the council on “that the Community remain united in accordance with the Parish By-Laws of 1974”

“It is an aim of this Parish to remain united as one Parish regardless of churches or pieces of property owned” (section 1 and 8)
Voting:
Philip Kithas – do not split
Charles Cayias – do not split
Basil Chelemes – do not split
Yanni Armaou – do not split
Steve Gamvroulas – do not split
Dino Pappas – do not split
Jeff Klekas – do not split
Nick Bapis – do not split
Douglas Anderson – do not split
Margaret Kiriev – unity of churches are treated equally
Charles Paulos – unity of churches are treated equally
Stephanie Chachas – unity of churches are treated equally
Madeline Bowden – unity of churches are treated equally
Charles Beck – unity of churches are treated equally

After the above vote, Father John Kaloudis felt that the Council was making a non-issue into a major issue. He felt that maybe 5% of the Parish was in favor of a division.

The vote on October 22, 2001, raises an interesting question: “What do we mean by treated equally”? I would like to review some of the major events from 1965 to the present time concerning the two churches:

1. The Community of Holy Trinity between 1965-1967 after several General Assemblies agreed to build a second church. It was understood that the mother church, Holy Trinity, would raise the necessary funds.

2. It was also understood and agreed by the parishioners that it would remain a united community – two churches.

a. One Parish Council
b. One Budget
c. Clergy alternating for services
d. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in New York approved
3. In 1967-1979 the following occurred:

a. The 5330 Building Committee was organized
b. A fundraising campaign was conducted, with over $500,000 in cash and pledges. By the mid 1970’s 98% was collected.
c. In July 1968, in order to meet the Parish By-Laws, a ballot was mailed to all members in good standing (July 1, 1968) to approve the following:

i. Purchase properties at 5330 South Highland Drive
ii. Construct a church with 21 classrooms
iii. Accept the initial bid of $484,773 (with later changes the cost increased)
iv. Borrow $350,000 from a lending institution (Prudential Loan)
d. Results of the balloting: 862 ballots were mailed. Voting Yes (650), voting
No (40), and Not voting (172). Approved by a 75.3%
4. General Assembly action on April 28, 1968:
The General Assembly unanimously voted the following motion made by Nick Vidalakis and seconded by Andy Katsanevas.

“That any attempt or motion in a Special General Assembly to separate or divide
the Greater Salt Lake Greek Orthodox Community would require the following:

a. Minimum of six months written notice with full and detailed particulars as to
the proposed division or separation.
b. General Assembly discussion.
c. A minimum vote of 300 or 75% of the total eligible membership of the
Parish (not the number which may be at any given General Assembly) which ever
number is greater.”
5. During the period 1970-1980’s:

a. Funds were raised by the Community for the Iconography at Prophet Elias and
improvements at Holy Trinity.
b. The underground water problem at
Prophet Elias was corrected.
c. Landscaping and a ball park were completed
at Prophet Elias.
6. In 1972, the Community purchased the Covey Apartment Complex (La France) for $286,000. The profit from the rentals and management fees go directly to the church budget – both churches benefit from this.

7. In the spring of 1974, the Community sponsored the “Mortgage Pay Off” event, a major social activity to raise additional funds for the new Church. Approximately $170,000 was raised (profit). The funds were invested in Utah Power stock and the dividends (monthly) were used to help pay the Prudential Loan. The loan was paid in 1986, and the Community still had the original Utah Power stock.

8. In December 1976, the Crane Property was purchased for $120,000, the seller donated to the Community $20,000 – our cost was $100,000. The church budget receives the parking rentals – both churches benefit.

9. During the period 1977-1980’s, the Community added to the Memorial Building a large dining hall, a second story for church offices and a storage area. Funds for the construction came from the first Greek Festivals and donations in kind. Also, the volunteer work of 25-30 parishioners who worked on weekends constructing the building saved the Community between $50,000 and $75,000.

10. In 1981, the mosaics fell from the dome at Prophet Elias. The entire Community was greatly concerned. By the late 1980’s the Pantocratora was replaced and additional iconography was added to Prophet Elias. In 1990-1991, donations from our parishioners were made to prepare the Church for it’s consecration in July of 1991.

11. In 1982 and in 1988, the Community purchased all remaining properties north of the Memorial Building. Total cost $670,000 (paid by Festival and donations). Both churches benefit from the rental income on parking.

12. In 1993 the Community decided to build a large kitchen facility and storage area behind the Memorial Building. The cost was $250,000. All of us have greatly benefited by having the use of these facilities during the Festival preparation, the three days of the Festival, and for other Community functions.

13. In 1995-1997, the Multi Purpose Center/St. Sophia Orthodox School was constructed at Prophet Elias. This was a major Community effort. Because the scope of the project changed the cost also increased. The center included a regulation size basketball court, locker rooms and a large kitchen. The existing Prophet Elias building required considerable work. Approximately $500,000 was necessary: sealed playground and basketball play area for the school, new electrical main service, new gas line, etc. Approximately $750,000 was donated by suppliers, contractors: kitchen equipment, roofing, tile, marble, bricks, concrete, plumbing, flooring, wallpaper. A two story building was added: classrooms, restrooms, board room, elevator, a new entry are for classrooms, etc. All of the above is included in the total cost of $2,100,000 less the $168,000 donated by the contractor. The Parish Council approved all the additional items, scope and cost. The general assembly was fully informed.

14. In 1998 a debt existed of $1,000,000. In this amount was approximately $400,000 from the first phase of the reconstruction of the roof at Holy Trinity Cathedral (1997-1998). The cost of this project was $600,000, some paid by festival and fundraiser. Approximately $600,000 was from the Prophet Elias project. A loan of $1,000,000 was with First Utah Bank. In 2002, the loan was paid in full from individual donors, festival, Olympic rentals and Hellenic Heritage Campaign funds.

15. In 1996, the Bell Tower at Prophet Elias and tile work in the foyer needed repairs. The cost was approximately $100,000.

16. In 1999, a new parking lot expansion at Prophet Elias adjacent to the ball field was completed and funds raised for this project was $150,000.

17. In 2003, the Community purchased the land north of Prophet Elias along Highland Drive. The cost was $115,000.

18. In 2004-2005 the Holy Trinity Cathedral restoration took place. For a detailed review of the scope and the cost see attached letter (dated 8-1-06) from Douglas Anderson to Nick Varanakis. [Moderator's Note: the aforementioned letter is not included in this posting.] The total cost of the restoration of the Cathedral (1997-2005) including the earlier dome/roof project, the feasibility study of 1997, architectural planning, furnishings, Icon restoration, and stain glass window work is approximately $4,200,000.

19. The annual Greek Festival involves the entire Community. Capital improvement projects through the years have benefited both churches.

20. The language issue is a concern. Since the 1970’s we have used English at both churches.

21. A concern expressed by some parishioners is the need to assign a full time clergy and an office staff at Prophet Elias. In the 1970’s & 1980’s, part time volunteers worked in the office at Prophet Elias. In the late 1990’s clergy had been assigned on certain weekdays at Prophet Elias.
22. In October 2002 an enlarged church office was established (full time) at Prophet Elias. In addition a full time Proestamenos (Father Michael Kouremetis) had been assigned.

23. Perhaps another issue has developed, the so-called “ethnic”. How viable this is for both churches, in my opinion is at the very most marginal when compared with the other large Greek Orthodox Communities throughout the country.

24. We must never forget that it was the Greek Immigrants who were the founders of our community in 1905.


Constantine Skedros
Historian, Greek Orthodox Community of Greater Salt Lake City

The Metropolitan's "Flip-Flop"; the Stubborness of the Proistamenos ...

... Or, why is it good to read and review prior correspondence to our Community

We need to learn from history. On June 2, 1998, the Metropolitan threatened to re-assign Fr. John Tsaras because he thought that ONLY the “head priest rotates between the two parishes.” On September 26, 2002, the Metropolitan assigned this Proistameno to serve “primarily” (not exclusively) at Prophet Elias Church.

This Proistamenos ignores the spirit and the express letter of his “assignment letter.” He wants exclusivity. He thinks that the Parish Council exists to serve him. He decides, CONTRARY to the past directives of the Metropolitan, to camp out exclusively at the Prophet Elias Church. This Proistamenos believes that when he deigns to come to the Cathedral of the Community once a year, on Holy Tuesday, he has discharged his duty.

Why has the Parish Council refused to follow the prior directives of the Metropolitan? Why is this Proistameno allowed to act in such a divisive manner to the detriment of the entire community? Why does the Metropolitan allow this situation to continue?

Should the parishioners who worship on Sundays at Holy Trinity not be allowed to know who the Proistameno of their community is? More importantly, how is this Proistameno to know who the Holy Trinity parishioners are? Should he not minister to the needs of the parishioners who attend church at the Cathedral? How can he know what our needs are, when he hides out exclusively at the Prophet Elias campus? Yet this Proistameno was appointed to be the Dean of the Cathedral!

Clearly the Metropolitan recognized in 1998 (see html copy below) that the spirit of the clergy assignment must be made, so that as many parishioners as possible may know who the “head priest” is.

Well said, Metropolitan Isaiah. We applaud your position. It is supported by our community. The only recalcitrant person is this Proistameno. Do we need a Proistameno who refuses to follow the past directives of the Metropolitan? Please assign him to another parish where he does NOT have to choose between two churches. Is this Proistameno the “head priest” of this community - ALL of this community - or not?

No person on this earth walks with holes in the palms of his hands. It is very appropriate to recognize the error; the Metropolitan must correct the wrong. This Proistameno must ROTATE between our two churches or find an assignment that does not require it.

It is evident from the attached letter that in 1998, there were NO canonical issues regarding this community's situation. Nothing has changed since that time to place a canonical issue in play. It is evident from the express language of the letter that there was no “bigamy” issue then! And, there is not one now! This Proistameno’s past expressions (about canonical postulants) are nothing but hogwash.

Please read the Metropolitan’s letter dated June 2, 1998 and draw your own conclusions. It is supplied for your reading pleasure.

Best regards,



Nick J. Colessides

P.S. I. This Proistameno cannot hide forever; he must respond about the reasons for his disobedience. What is his agenda?

Attachment: Metropolitan Isaiah's Letter, dated 2 June 1998, to Fr. John Kaloudis

=============================

(As always we have not edited the original document, written on the letterhead of the then Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver, beyond converting it to html for Internet publication and have tried inasmuch as possible to maintain original formatting.)

2 June 1998

Reverend John Kaloudis
The Esteemed Parish Council
Holy Trinity Cathedral & Prophet Elias Church
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101


Beloved in the Lord,


I am attempting to arrange my schedule so that I may make a pastoral visit to your parishes in the oncoming future.


Among the items I wish to discuss is the need for your Assistant Priest, Father John Tsaras. The reason I say this is because His Eminence Archbishop Spyridon assigned Father Tsaras to the Prophet Elias Church. Yet, I am told that he is rarely there from Sunday to Sunday.


My position in this matter is clear: Father Politis was assigned to Holy Trinity and Father Tsaras was assigned to Prophet Elias. Unfortunately, Father Kaloudis has ignored the assignment letters, as well as my letter to him and to you that only the head priest rotates between the two parishes and not what you have been doing.


Many of your members do not know who their priest is. The procedure you have been following has rendered the priests more as functionaries rather than spiritual fathers. This does not help the people to grow spiritually.


I am beginning to suspect that you do not need a third priest, since Prophet Elias Church is literally closed during weekdays. If your procedure does not change, and if the assignment letters of the two assistant priests are not honored, then I will have no choice but to reassign Father Tsaras to another parish.


I hope to inform you soon when I will be coming to Salt Lake City, so that this matter may be resolved, as well as any other problems which prevent your parishes from being Christ-centered congregations with the people identifying themselves with one spiritual father.


With Paternal Blessings,


[signature]


+ Metropolitan Isaiah
Presiding Hierarch
of the Diocese of Denver

Friday, October 12, 2007

10,000 Hits and Counting

We have reached the 10,000 hit mark since this effort began almost 6 months ago. In these 6 months, little to nothing has changed in our community. The current regime continues with their campaign of misinformation, distributing selective information and flat out dishonesty. This proistameno, who by his own admission "doesn't read the blog", continues to publicly state that the "blog is evil." If he doesn't read it, how can he deem it evil? And, if it is evil to stand for truth and openness, then so be it.

We at TOCB are grateful there are so many who have been concerned enough to follow the circus that is our community under this proistameno. We will continue in our effort to disseminate pertinent information and welcome your comments. The church cannot exist without the "laos" and this "laos" has still had enough of the status quo.