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

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.

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?

Beware of the Silence

I had the opportunity to attend services this past Sunday at Prophet Elias where His Eminence presided. I went with the specific purpose to hear whether our Metropolitan would address the issue of splitting our community. I was not surprised when he neglected to mention one word. His silence spoke volumes. My experience with the Metropolitan's silence dates back to 2002 when I served on the parish council. I learned a great deal from my past experience how the Metropolitan operates and would like to share my observations. His silence scares me.

In 2002 seven members of our parish council resigned with the knowledge of our then proistameno Kaloudis. Four of us who remained on the parish council visited with His Eminence at his office in Denver. After a six hour discussion, His Eminence assured us that everything would be fine. He sent us back home with the definite impression that he wanted to work with us to resolve the issues we had at that time. Two weeks later, during the festival, he sent a letter installing an interim parish council without having the decency of informing us of our dismissal. Our dismissal letters came two days later. This is how our Metropolitan chose to "work with us."

Five years later we are faced with the most serious issue in our 100 year history; the splitting of our community. A new Proistameno (takes the place of Kaloudis) but I fear the agenda remains the same - splitting the community as Kaloudis had said to the Metropolitan we were practicing un-Christian polygamy. We have been told time and again that the church recognizes the priest as the bridegroom of the parish. His Eminence has been overseeing our Diocese/Metropolis since June 23, 1992. In all this time he has raised no issue with how our community functions. Our current Proistameno has made this an issue again for us. His assignment letter to our community states our Proistameno will serve "primarily" at Prophet Elias. Apparently, "primarily" and exclusively are synonymous to him.

When Prophet Elias was built, the late Archbishop Iakovos made it abundantly clear that we were to remain one community. At the consecration of Prophet Elias in 1991 this same Archbishop reiterated how we were to remain one community. As far as I know, there has not been a Council changing the canons. (If His Eminence or our Proistameno can prove otherwise I welcome their effort) Archbishop Iakovos had no canonical issues with our community but suddenly our Metropolitan and Proistameno do?

I know from attending the last parish council meeting that our Metropolitan has sent a letter to our community concerning the split. The letter has been withheld not only from the parishioners but from the parish council. I also know that a resolution was passed at the Metropolis Clergy and Laity Conference this past May in Oklahoma, City which exclusively deals with our community. The resolution states that each parish within this Metropolis will be a separate entity with its own parish council and Proistameno.

My experience with our Metropolitan and his actions of the past lead me to believe that should we ever have the honor of seeing his letter, he will repeat what he said in 2002 that a daughter needs to leave her mother. He will say this even though he is spearheading the movement. He will offer a solution to dividing the properties that has been repeated in the "information" meetings - Holy Trinity keep all the downtown properties and Prophet Elias keep the Holladay property. In his mind this is a done deal.

I urge you to stand up and fight to keep our community in tact. We have survived 100 plus years and we will fight for what we believe and what is right. We can't let a small minority and the clergy impose their will on us. Thank you for your time and may God bless us all.

Yannis Armaou

Follow-up Commentary to "...the Fixes Are IN!"

Moderator's Note: We are taking the opportunity to print letters regarding the recent mail-out by the Parish Council and to our earlier blog.

Moderator's Note: At Matthew Hedberg's request, and due to the length of his commentary, we are printing, as its own separate blog, his thoughts on the recent communication sent out by the Parish Council and on our previous article.

Greetings once again,

I feel the “Looks Like All the 'Fixes Are IN' ”! post addresses some important issues.

Beginning with the Holy Trinity and Prophet Elias Heritage foundation. I think it is now abundantly clear that our community was not dealt with fairly, or honestly, by the diocese in regards to this issue. The individuals behind the formation of this foundation have jumped through every hoop presented to them by the powers that be and still the Metropolitan’s office impedes progress on this issue. I don’t think I will need to argue very passionately to convince you that Metropolitan Isaiah wants to split Holy Trinity and Prophet Elias. If you do need convincing of this now blatantly apparent fact, I would refer you to his recent actions of requesting that a committee be formed to asses the feasibility of separating the parishes; and his personal opinion letter of August 1, 1991 celebrating the consecration of Prophet Elias Church. With this precedence in mind I am not shocked that the Heritage Foundation is a point of apparent concern for him. I would never presume to know his thoughts and admit my ignorance as to the complex inter-workings of the hierarchy of our church. But this one seems like common sense to me. Not being any sort of businessperson or politician I am not qualified to make any expert analysis of the Heritage Foundation. As a layman however, the one thing that has jumped out at me in my review of the proposals for the foundation, especially the original version, is that such a foundation would make it exceedingly difficult to separate the parishes. Hmmmm…. I wonder why we’re having so much trouble receiving the Metropolitan’s stamp of approval.

Records of General Assemblies and Parish Council meeting should be, in my opinion, recorded. If a written action point version of the minutes is necessary so be it. But, as I proposed during my allotted comment time during the Parish council meeting, I feel that a digital recording of such meetings should be made and posted on the church website so that all information regarding the guiding of the parish is made openly available to all concerned parishioners. The technology IS out there. Every major radio and television news company around the world has a website with on demand audio and visual media. I think it would be a worthwhile investment for our church to adopt such practices for the sake of forthright transparency and open exchange of information and ideas in its governing bodies.

Whilst I commend the Parish Council for its diligence in attempting to ensure that the Metropolitan will be fully informed on all pertinent circumstances within our community as he decides whether or not to assign us our requested priest (Fr. Mario) I would like to pose a few questions. During the course of the Parish Council meeting as the budget was being reviewed the following statement was, to my recollection, made; “We have no money for hiring a third priest at this point in time.” I am not a financial advisor and whilst I have been reviewing the copy of the budget that the Parish Council graciously provided me with I admit, there are expenditures and incomes listed on the budget that I don’t fully understand. I am sure that our treasurer fully understands these documents and should I find time I intend to request an appointment with him so he can help me understand the document in its entirety. This being said, according to the budget, approximately $95,000 exists for “day to day” church operations, tens of thousands more exist in Festival accounts, and what ever happened to the money expended in Father George’s salary that we no longer pay? I would appreciate it if someone could help me understand how we can’t find enough money from these three, and possible other sources to hire Fr. Mario. In regards to the arguments that Fr. Mario couldn’t be assigned here because it is his home parish I think that if such arguments are going to be made, as a matter of fairness, all other priest within this diocese that serve in their home parishes should be reassigned as well. Beyond this, I don’t think it is very logical that a priest is prohibited from assignment within his home parish. Who better than a local understands the issues facing our community, and the unique underlying facets that define the dynamics of our community? I was recently in the parish at Pocatello dancing with Dionysius at their festival. There I met a young seminarian from that community. When we discussed his home parish in Pocatello as a possible future assignment for him I got the impression both from my personal conversation with him and from observing his interactions with the local parishioners that he would be a great asset to the community some day as an assigned priest.

Regarding the questionnaire and “separation feasibility committee.” I am in full support of a questionnaire being issued immediately to the community at large and would also support their issuance on regular occasion in the future. It is important that the wishes of the majority of the community be understood so that leaders can aptly guide the community towards its established goals. This being said, I would fervently request that the Parish Council design the questionnaire to be as encompassing and clarifying as possible. I would call also on all parishioners to participate. This isn’t like voting Democrat in Utah; your opinion WILL influence the outcome of events.

When I attended the Parish Council meeting the president repeatedly stated that the Bishop had stressed to him that he was REQUESTING not COMMANDING that a committee be formed. It seems to me, that since this is only a request, it would be logical to wait until the survey has been completed before we decide whether or not to comply with this request. If the support/desire for a committee is not present amongst the majority of the parishioners why waste the time, money, and effort to form one? The fact that the committee would operate outside the control of the Parish Council is worrisome to me. The president said during the meeting that we have been assured by the Metropolitan that any decision to split the community would be the community’s decision and no one else’s. If this is the case, why would we investigate the possibility of splitting with a committee that is independent of the legislative body elected by the community to pursue and protect the interests of the community?

Anonymous letters; while I feel that the majority of the time these letters are discredited because no author signs their name thereby eliminating the opportunity for rebuttal and response by the receiving party I don’t think it is wise to just disregard them. Do the police disregard anonymous tips? Would the church disregard an anonymous letter containing a bomb threat? Are there not materials in common circulation by our church i.e. prayers, songs sung by the choir, etc. that we don’t attribute to a specific author? While anonymous letters in recent instances may cause more problems than they solve, to disregard them entirely is irresponsible. At the bare minimum read them, circulate them amongst the people they concern, and learn from them. To all those writing anonymous letters, sign your name. Are you ashamed of your opinion, or just scared of repercussions for expressing them? Either way, by not voicing and sticking to your opinions, you hinder this community.

These are my own personal opinions, I would love to hear yours. I would remind you to please approach your children about my petition.

Respectfully,

Matthew Hedberg

Moderator's Note: At Jim's Kastanis' request, we are printing his thoughts to the Parish Council regarding their recent mail-out.

July 2, 2007

Parish Council
Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake

Dear Parish Council,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 6/27/07 in regard to the issues currently confronting our community. I concur with most of your decisions on the issues except with issue # 4.” The feasibility of having two independent parishes”.
An issue of this magnitude should not be “unofficial” and left to anyone other than the Parish Council. The Parish Council should go out and meet with the people in the community and study the issue. You were all elected by the community as our representatives and it is your duty to undertake the study of the issue. Half of the Council could survey Holy Trinity and half of the Council could survey Prophet Elias. Then both halves could meet together and make their findings known to the community. This would offer much more accreditation to the study than any 5 or 10 known or unknown individuals selected at random.

Respectfully,

Jim Kastanis

Looks Like All the "Fixes Are IN"!

Within the next few days we should all be receiving the "explanation" letter from our Parish Council. The letter contains more than the "explanation" of the Metropolitan's letter, as we will see, but doesn't stray from the doublespeak and secrecy that are trademarks of the current regime. It took only until the second sentence to insult our intelligence where "the Clergy would like to remind all that church is still in session during the summer months..." Apparently there was a time in the history of this community where the church was padlocked during the summer and there were no services?

We will attempt to review the letter through the six issues it addresses. Your comments and opinions are welcome and we look forward to posting them.

1. Holy Trinity and Prophet Elias Heritage Corporation: Apparently this issue is still under "review" by the Metropolitan, Archdiocese, the State Department, CIA, FBI, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Intergalactic Star Federation?... All we are waiting for is "ratification" from the Metropolitan? "Ratification" of what? The UPRs are clear in stating that the Metropolitan ratifies only Parish Council elections, not parish General Assemblies. The doublespeak that has occurred with this issue alone is enough to satisfy a lifetime quota. First the Metropolitan supported the idea, stating that if passed at a General Assembly he would like to make it a model for the Metropolis. The initiative overwhelmingly passes and suddenly we have problems. Letters we have never seen have allegedly come from the Metropolitan and the Archdiocese. So here we are today waiting for "ratification" on an issue that has already been ratified by the community. Obviously, it really doesn't matter what we say; all we need to do is pay our stewardship and the current regime will take care of everything else.

2. Videotape of May 21, 2007 General Assembly: It is no secret that the meeting was videotaped and requests have been made to make the video available. And how were these requests answered? Should anyone be interested in viewing the video, a simple call to the church office to make an appointment for viewing is all it takes. We are reminded however that the "written minutes of the meeting are the only official record of the community." Need we say more? The incomplete, skeleton minutes advocated by the current regime are the only official record. So we must not believe our eyes and ears; we just rely on the recorded minutes - period.

3. Letter requesting assignment of third priest: The letter has not been written, contrary to the mandate of the General Assembly, but our regime has good reason. "The parish council financial committee is updating the current budgets, finances and stewardship conditions so that when the letter is sent shortly, we have updated information for His Eminence." Certainly the "official record of the community" will reflect that the General Assembly motion passed required that all this be done before the letter is sent. Updated information for His Eminence? The mandate was clear. The only updated information His Eminence needs is that the community requests a third priest be assigned and that priest be Fr. Mario Giannopoulos. The request for another priest is being made by the community. To our knowledge the Metropolitan is not requesting this type of information to make his decision. The responsibility for this issue falls solely on our Proistameno who voluntarily stated he would write the letter. It is clear from his inaction regarding the matter that despite his public statements, he has an issue with Fr. Mario being assigned to our community. What could he possibly be afraid of? Is it perhaps that this action doesn't facilitate his ultimate goal of splitting the community? Ultimately what will happen is the Parish Council will declare that there is no money for a third priest. The Metropolitan will then write a letter being "sympathetic" to the financial constraints of the community (which wasn't the case when either of the current clergy were assigned, nor when it comes to our Archdiocesan assessments.) He will also say that the assignment of a priest to his home parish is contrary to "canonical order" even though he has clergy assigned to their home parishes throughout the Metropolis. Stonewall, distract and dissemble - tactics of the current regime both here and in Denver.

4. Splitting the community: The letter tells us, "You may have heard that there are several parishioners who have approached the Metropolitan and the Parish Council about studying the feasibility of having two independent parishes." In a letter filled with disingenuous statements, this one tops them all! Nowhere in the "manifesto" sent by the split advocates (who did NOT identify themselves) does it call for a 'feasibility study'. The "manifesto" is clear only in offering their unsupported arguments in favor of splitting. We are also told, "In discussions with the Metropolitan, he requested that an unofficial committee be established with parishioners from both Holy Trinity Cathedral and Prophet Elias Church. The efforts of this committee will not be under the direction of the Parish Council." Here again we see examples of the backroom shenanigans that has made this current regime infamous. In what forum did the Metropolitan request this committee be established? Could it be that this request was made in that elusive letter we are not afforded the courtesy of reading ourselves? Further, it is unconscionable that this committee would function outside the direction of the Parish Council. (Can you say "violation of the UPRs?") Undoubtedly, this committee will function under the direction of the Proistameno. This committee has been labeled "unofficial" by our Parish Council in their letter. It would stand to reason any information gathered, or action recommended would therefore also be "unofficial", in contrast to a General Assembly which is a duly constituted and official body that issues official and binding decisions. Undoubtedly, to be part of this "unofficial" rubber-stamp committee one must be of like mind with the Proistameno. Those holding dissenting views need not apply.

5. Questionnaire and survey: This ought to be a dandy! We "will have every opportunity to make our position known and considered" through a survey. How very generous and magnanimous to consider our positions! Who will form the questions? Another "unofficial committee"? The same one? It is ironic that the anonymity complained about in the next point is encouraged through this survey. Whatever happened to the concept of open, face-to-face dialogue? We will reserve further comment until the survey has been distributed.

6. Anonymous Letters: The Parish Council believes that sending of anonymous letters is less than productive. Our contention here is this regime has the propensity not to respond to letters whose authors actually have the courage of their convictions and identify themselves. Several parishioners have reported sending letters to this regime, having signed their names, and have not had the courtesy of any response. Discard all anonymous letters, fine. At least, however, have the decency to respond to those that are not anonymous. It would again stand to reason if anonymous letters are discarded, anonymous surveys would be likely to suffer the same fate. Heck, the Parish Council members won't even provide minutes with an account of how each stands individually on subjects of vital importance to the community! But they decry anonymous letters? Apply the standard across the board, gentlemen, and not only when it serves your purposes.

A final thought: the stated purpose of this letter is "to follow up" on matters discussed at the Spring General Assembly. The letter may "follow up" on issues, but it purposely withholds information necessary for informed decision-making. Send us, your contitutents, the Metropolitan's letter discussing the split. Don't make excuses why the mandate of the General Assembly regarding the assignment of a third priest has not been accomplished. Don't try to convince us that only the "feasibility of a split" has been requested, when the entire process reeks of a "done deal". And finally gentlemen, stop insulting everyone's intelligence and just start being open and telling the truth.

A Letter From A Fellow Parishioner

Dear Fellow Blog Readers,

I was fortunate enough to attend the last parish council meeting where several things were discussed. Some of the issues discussed I would like to share with you. Before starting let me say that I was not the only parishioner outside of the parish council who attended the last meeting and would like to thank the president and the members of the council who were most gracious to all of us in allowing us to briefly speak about our concerns.

It was discussed during the meeting that the minutes of parish council meetings will now only include action items and no details. In my opinion the minutes of past parish councils were open and honest in that they include more than action items but issues discussed. During my tenure on the parish council we went the extra mile and audio taped the meetings to insure that the minutes accurately reflected the opinions and discussions of all members involved. This way, the community that elected us could see what each of us stood for. I was told by a member of this current parish council at this last meeting I attended that the only reason we used audio tape was because "we didn't trust each other." The use of audio tapes has nothing to do with trust it has to do with being open and honest to the whole community. I hope that this parish council uses the practice of earlier years and offers us complete minutes not just action items.

Also discussed was the letter sent from the Metropolitan and read by the president about splitting the community. A letter was given to each member of the parish council by the executive committee that will go out shortly to the community explaining the letter from the Metropolitan. I am strongly offended and disagree with this parish council sending me a letter explaining what the Metropolitan wrote in his about our community. Instead of sending us their letter, I would prefer they send us the ORIGINAL letter from the Metropolitan. This way I can see for myself and you all can see for yourselves what our Metropolitan is saying should be done to OUR community. What these letters say we don't know yet. This same parish council member discussed above commented that general assembly decisions are just a WISH and what a general assembly decided 35 years ago is not binding today. The fact remains that in 1969 a general assembly voted and passed a motion related to how a split can take place. That motion was not just a WISH and is still binding until another general assembly votes to reverse that decision. Also in attendance at this last parish council meeting were two past presidents who spoke passionately against the split.

I wanted to speak about the split in detail but will refrain until we all receive the parish council's letter which is being sent to the community. Until that time we need to speak loudly about being kept in the dark and treated like second class citizens. Thank you to the blog moderators for allowing us this forum to voice our opinions.

Sincerely,

Yannis Armaou

Killing the Messenger

Numerous reports have been circulated that some of our Parish Council members and others in the community are blaming the community’s current woes on the blog. We submit that these people are confusing cause and effect.

Let’s think about this, shall we? The idea for the blog first began because numerous parishioners were frustrated. Their efforts, after a properly conducted special General Assembly, were thwarted by backdoor subterfuge from the minority, in collusion with the Archdiocese. When one parishioner, also a Parish Council member, objected too strenuously to this sorry state of affairs, someone reported to the Metropolitan. Without even bothering to investigate, perhaps ask the parishioner/council member to explain himself, the Metropolitan imposed highly stringent sanctions, most of which he has now rescinded, against the former Parish Council member. While this situation was occurring, there were also the rumblings surrounding the activities of parishioners seeking to split the community. The die was cast.

Those of us who write for and who moderate this blog have been told by parishioners that it provides the only resource where some information is forthcoming. It is also the only place where issues that are pertinent to all parishioners, not just to the clergy and the Parish Council, are discussed. All viewpoints are welcomed and encouraged. Some Parish Council members have claimed inaccuracies. We invite those who feel this way to write us and point out these inaccuracies; if they are right, like all good journalists we will print a retraction along with their views.

There are those who clearly hoped the blog would just go away. The secrecy that the Parish Council has been embracing, not resisting, of late has all but ensured that it will not go away. More and more it appears they are either unwilling or unable to honestly address their constituents’ concerns. We are outraged by the backdoor tactics and by the clandestine attempts to split the community, which is now presented as a fait accompli. These actions have assured the blog’s growing popularity. Add to these local issues the backdrop of a hierarchy that itself is unwilling or unable to address honestly the growing regional and national scandal of sexual abuse cases. Finally, there is a glaring double standard between the behavior the clergy demand from their flock and that which they will condone for themselves. To claim that the blog is the cause of these problems is absurd.

The blog is causing these problems? Or is it that the blog is pointing to them, thus exposing the clergy’s high-handedness and the Parish Council’s inability to address these issues. All any of us have ever asked is that our Parish Council have the courage to stand up for what is right for their community, and operate openly, as did their fathers and grandfathers.

We'll Tell You the Story in Our Own Words

Troubling. No better way to describe the latest Parish Council meeting. Just flat out troubling. What will be described below would not be known to the community were it not for this forum. The current regime doesn't want us to know. The current regime wants to spoon feed us information with their spin. It appears that the community at large is on a need-to-know basis: if the current regime thinks we need to know they will tell us. Otherwise, don't expect any information pertaining to our community be made public until the regime deems the time appropriate.

Our first example deals with a letter sent to the community from the Metropolitan and read to the Parish Council at the June 4 meeting. The letter deals with the issue of splitting our community. No copy of the letter was distributed to the members of the Parish Council; it was only read to them. The best part of this charade is that the Parish Council will be sending us a letter explaining the Metropolitan's letter among other things. To clarify, the Metropolitan's letter has not been disseminated. All indications are that it will not be disseminated to the community. What will be disseminated is an explanation of the letter.

Hard to believe a letter that impacts our life in our community will never be seen. Well, believe it. Apparently, we are not intelligent enough to understand what is written and come to our own conclusions. No doubt, the Metropolitan's letter has been under armed guard since it was received, only to see the light of day at the behest of our regime leaders. It is hard to imagine what the current regime fears might happen should we read that letter. God forbid we know the truth of what is happening on our church. Given the track record of the current regime and especially this Proistameno, truth is a foreign concept. The only truth we will know from them is the truth they will explain to us. We await with baited breath the letter of the Parish Council explaining the Metropolitan's letter lest we read the Metropolitan's letter ourselves and be confused. Gentlemen: SAVE YOUR EXPLANATION AND JUST SEND THE METROPOLITAN'S LETTER.

Secondly, if you have an inkling to find out what was discussed at a Parish Council meeting and think you could peruse the minutes and actually find out what was discussed, THINK AGAIN. Any detailed account of Parish Council proceedings is frowned upon by this regime as it would enlighten the community. At this last meeting, a detailed set of minutes was prepared and presented to the Parish Council along with a watered-down version void of any details discussed. Guess which version was adopted and has become the official record of the community? Go ahead, guess. If you guessed watered-down, you win. Look back at minutes of previous years and compare. What you will find is that minutes of years past are real minutes and minutes of this regime are a joke. Just another attempt to hide what is really happening and try to convince us that all is well.

We won't even begin to discuss the confidentiality agreement this Proistameno has distributed and wishes every member of the Parish Council to sign. The secrecy of this regime is nauseating. The utter disregard for truth and open information reeks of fascism. What a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Most disturbing is knowing that nothing will change. As long as this regime is in power and this Proistameno is allowed to pull the strings, nothing will change. This does not bode well for those of us poor peasants on the outside. We are left to wonder and the regime continues playing us. We will be played as long as we allow it. Only we can say that enough is enough. Maybe it's time we speak.

An Open Letter from One of Our Young Parishioners

Greetings Bloggers,

My name is Matthew Hedberg, I have been an active member of the Greek Orthodox Community of Greater Salt Lake for my entire life. I was in attendance at the most recent Parish Council meeting and read into record a petition that I have drafted on behalf of the cosigned youth. I wish to avoid any misconstrued notions that my addressing this audience via this medium is intended to be incendiary or critical of the Parish Council. On the contrary, they were very kind and open towards me, and I observed a great deal of impassioned concern and consideration being taken on behalf of the members of the council as they actively pursued resolutions to the issues that they addressed. That being said, the condition of this community is what it is, the recent actions taken by the parishioners group that wishes to separate the two churches and the Metropolitan’s office are forcing the issue of a schism upon us. My petition addresses five important issues facing our community the most important one being unity within our community and the avoidance of the aforementioned schism. I write to you today to request that those of you who read this blog and have children who may be interested in signing the petition might approach them about reading the petition to see if it accurately reflects their opinions. The legacy being shaped by you today is the legacy that we, the youth, shall inherit. I am not including the text of my petition in this post although I will be glad to do so once all the signatures have been obtained. If you would like to receive an electronic copy of the petition for your children to view please contact the blog administrators at tocbslc@gmail.com or refer to the official minutes for the Parish Council meeting of June 25, 2007. I hereby grant the TOCB administrators of this blog permission to release my email address to individuals requesting further information on this issue.

Thank you for your time,


Matthew Hedberg


Moderator's Note: Matt, thank you very much for your post. Please provide us the petition when it's completed, and we will be happy to post it. Those wishing to review it, may obtain Matt's e-mail address by e-mailing tocbslc@gmail.com.

So This Is What The Church Is Supposed To Be

"The Church is established not to sow division among those who gather within Her, but to gather those who are divided." These words of St. John Chrysostom encapsulate one aspect of the life of the church we all so dearly love. It seems that these words are more than appropriate in light of the current regime's (along with their minions) mission to split our community.

So the question begs to be asked: What say you? You certainly can't say that your actions aren't sowing division. Is it that you believe you are gathering those divided? Well... are we missing something? Sow division or gather those divided. Fairly straightforward and to the point. Well, what say you?

You speak of being canonically correct with the Archdiocese yet site no canons to support your statement. You contend your position has the full support of and has been encouraged by the Archdiocese for years yet offer nothing supporting your position. Well, what say you? Do years worth of letters exist from the Archdiocese that only you are privy to?

How truly sad it is that the current regime (along with their minions) take a position that promotes division. The minions are just following orders but the regime should know better because of their ordained positions in the church. So, we await your documented, substantiated response to whether you sow division or gather those divided. Well, what say you?

Not Only a Place to Complain

It has been circulated that only complaints and criticisms are circulated on this site and for the most part, that is correct. Until now, the issues at hand and the actions taken or not taken have necessitated only those type of responses. Today, an action occurred that calls for at least partial thanks and praise. His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah, in a letter dated June 19, 2007 to Mr. Nick Colessides, lifted the ecclesiastical sanctions imposed several months ago. His Eminence writes in part, "On this basis, I lift all suspensions imposed on you in regard to the sacraments and services of the Church." While the ecclesiastical sanctions have been removed, the Metropolitan also states, "However I reserve the privilege of not recognizing your candidacy for the parish council for the next three years because of your statement against the Archdiocese."

Thank you and well done praises are due the Metropolitan for finally removing the ecclesiastical sanctions. Speaking the truth and standing up for one's beliefs are not reasons for one to be removed from the parish council and excommunicated. Posing a threat to the agenda and challenging the heavy handed tactics of the Proistameno are also not reasons for one to be removed from the parish council and excommunicated but it apparently was threatening enough in this instance to convince the Metropolitan to impose those sanctions. Be that as it may, the ecclesiastical sanctions have been lifted and for that, thank you Your Eminence.

Let us not forget though how we got to this point. The UPR's are clear in how one is removed from the parish council and those issues have been outlined in a previous article. There is no doubt that soon enough we will be hearing our Proistameno taking credit for having the sanctions lifted. Quick to take credit, never to take blame. Note to our Proistameno: Please spare us the theatrics and heroics. You publicly announced that this issue was between the Metropolitan and Nick and that you had nothing to do with it. We know better than to believe you had nothing to do with it. Don't jump in now and play Superman - we don't buy it.

Welcome home Nick, and thank you Your Eminence.

Suffer the Little Children... ? What the Heck!

It seems our hierarchs, specifically Metropolitan Isaiah, have now moved on to the offensive in defending a priest who now has four victims coming forward alleging sexual abuse.

Despite the mounting evidence against Fr. Katinas, and the emergence of more and more victims, our Metropolitan is vigorous in defending him. The Metropolitan's argument is perplexing. According to him, one can defrock a priest and if he's forgiven he'll be reinstated ... so what the heck? He gives the further example of Ireneos, who was busted down from Patriarch of Jerusalem to monk (yet he could be forgiven and become Patriarch again!) So what the heck?

Nowhere has the Metropolitan decried the activities that brought Fr. Katinas and former Patriarch of Jerusalem Ireneos to their present states. And yes, Fr. Katinas' wife is most definitely to be pitied and does deserve compassion. And the parishioners of Holy Trinity in Dallas most certainly deserve compassion. But NOWHERE do we see ANY compassion or words of comfort FOR THE VICTIMS! "Suffer the little children..." said the Lord. Where is the compassion for THEM?

Just once can we hear some humility with words such as, "we need to do better.... We are doing our utmost to make sure this NEVER happens again...."? Do we ever hear anything like this? Instead when the laity objects we're told we are gleefully airing the dirty laundry, "anthropocentric", or disobedient, unchristian, or not righteous ... Gleefully? Would that we never came to the NEED to air such dirty laundry. And it is not our dirty laundry! It is the clergy's, yet never once do we hear that, do we? No mea culpas from our hierarchs, no sir! Just admonitions to pay, pray and obey, and let God sort the rest of it out. What a callous and medieval mindset!

And isn't it funny that the money is always mentioned? Our metropolitan is surprised and displeased that contributions in Dallas are down 20%! The churches may belong to God, but our bishops act like they are THEIRS - and even though we build them, and we pay for their continuing operation, WE HAVE NO SAY. No, Your Eminence, we are NOT seeking to "punish God". What a convenient and facile condemnation! We are simply employing two ways to get your attention, the only ones that seem to work these days - publicity and the purse. You and your peers airily dismiss any attempts at reasonable and reasoned dialogue, claiming some sort of 'divine right' and admonishing us to not be "anthropocentric". But we submit that we are all made in the image of God, carrying within us His divine spark - an image that the hierarchy appears to dismiss routinely by its actions and words.

Obviously, simple shame is nowhere to be seen. And yes, the hierarchy should be ashamed that they are openly defending the alleged perpetrator and minimizing the pain of his alleged victims. The excuse given is that because the victims are now no longer children, somehow they should just stifle their feelings, though the memory and shame of their abuse lingers well into their adulthood. One priest likened such abuse to "spiritual murder." Why is there no pity for the victims' pain? Why do the clergy continually refuse to accept the responsibility they bear for trivializing something so serious, so devastating and so lingering?

As things stand, it is a wonder that any Greek Orthodox parent would even consider allowing a son to serve in the altar. It is a further wonder that decent and honorable men still wish to serve in the priesthood. Why does the hierarchy do nothing to weed out these blots upon our priesthood and our faith, and instead just shift the perpetrators from place to place - or hide their heads in the sand and just pretend that this CRIME is not occurring? And, when it occurs again are the faithful still going to hear the "what the heck" excuse?

Deafening Silence, Utter Dishonesty, Treachery and the Split, a Fait Accompli!

Since the last general assembly, the silence from our community leaders continues to be deafening. With the exception of the "manifesto" distributed by those who are in favor of a split, one would think that all is well on the home front. A closer evaluation might just reveal the calm before the storm.

At the last general assembly, the Proistameno voluntarily offered and announced that he would personally write the Metropolitan requesting that a third priest be assigned to our community. When asked if the letter had been written, the company line is that the budget, finance, building, or whatever committee is reviewing the matter. The mandate was that a letter be written, not for a committee review.

The real truth is that the assignment of a third priest at this time is not part of the obvious master plan of splitting our community. The Proistameno never intended to write that letter, but has discussed the matter with the Metropolitan. The course of action obviously decided upon is to stall so that the process of splitting (we'll get to that in a minute) the community could proceed. This betrayal of our forefathers’ intentions has been an ill-kept secret all this time; it is now out in the open for all to witness. To put it mildly, we were looked directly in the eye and lied to, again, by our Proistameno. Now, there's a surprise!

This same Proistameno publicly stated at the general assembly that he didn't know anything about the split. Yet he held a question-and-answer session in the church this past Sunday, regarding that same subject – the one he knows nothing about! It has been further reported that he will coronate a committee of ten people from both churches to see how this split can take place. Undoubtedly, he will appoint only those who will return to him the conclusion he seeks. A rhetorical question: Does this guy EVER do anything that benefits the community as a whole, or does he only do things that benefit him and his few select cronies? Ahhh, we digress.

For the record, one of those in favor of the split was asked who gave permission for the meetings to be held in the board room at Prophet Elias. He answered “Fr. Mike.” Wait, the Proistameno publicly stated that he didn't know anything about the split. Looks like we were looked in the eye and lied to again by our Proistameno. Another rhetorical question: Does this guy know how to tell the truth? Ahhh, but again, we digress.

The reality that exists is that it has been communicated from above that this community will be split. We get denials with a straight face, but actions are clearly speaking louder than words. The clandestine behavior and backroom shenanigans continue and we all remain in the dark.

Only actions that facilitate the split are undertaken and approved. For example, at the last general assembly, the pavilion became a top priority, and, as we were told, it will be finished by August 15. Similarly, the dome at Prophet Elias was at the top of the list. The only reason these projects are so urgent is that they need to be finished before we are forced to split the community. Obviously, for the folks who want to split, the attitude is “get as much as you can while you can”. The attitude displays an utterly cynical and transparent ploy to divide that which our parents and grandparents worked so hard to keep together. And our clergy and hierarchy are, sadly, in the forefront of this travesty.

WHY NOT? Here Is WHY NOT!

To those who would split our community, we offer this point-by-point rebuttal of the exegesis put forth by those wishing "independence" for the Prophet Elias "Parish".

First, no one doubts that you are a group of concerned parishioners. No one questions your love for Church, though you seemingly question that of those who disagree with your viewpoint. What is puzzling is your "concern for community". Truly we live in a time where we have lost and forgotten the lessons of history, both in our smaller community and in society as a whole.

Anyone who has lived in any large city in this country, where one church independently tries to form off another, KNOWS that this is a source of strife, jealousy and concern for loss of revenues from higher-paying stewards, key volunteers, etc. For the most part, Salt Lake was able to avoid this rift. This was, specifically, the main reason our grandparents and parents set up the community up in this manner, with the consent of the hierarchy. In fact, they were there at groundbreaking and gave their full blessing.

The notion that the parish priest cannot be the shepherd of this flock because this one community has two churches is nonsensical. For years priests have served faithfully at both churches. Parish Councils have administered for both churches according to the needs of both. The city's faithful have attended and supported both. To ask that this cease is highly unfair. A priest works in the Lord's vineyard. If a priest's assignment calls upon him to work in one vineyard or more than one, it should make no difference. Whether at the monastery, the parish, or on a foreign mission, the priest's calling is the same. In each case he recognizes that every situation is unique. It may be more accurate and genuine to state that the current Proistameno is unwilling, for reasons only known to himself, to put the time in that it takes to serve both churches, unique to this community, and not that it cannot be done. As such, he should have perhaps declined his assignment.

"To help make stewardship the only way to fund the parish's day-to-day operation." Now where have we heard this before? Sorry, folks, but 72% of your fellow parishioners do not agree. And we certainly are well aware of the tactics to which the minority resorted when you couldn't carry the popular vote. The community's overwhelming majority does not rule out other effective means of supporting our Church and its programs - it views them as reasonable, practical and responsible. It is neither reasonable nor fair to seek to impose upon the majority this narrow and parochial view.

The parent/child metaphor employed - that a parent ought to let a child grow up and become independent - is inept. Prophet Elias was never a "child" needing "maturity". Prophet Elias was a co-equal partner that served the Greek Orthodox community in this city by acknowledging and accommodating growth and expansion, yet still maintaining the identity of one community working together. The more apt metaphor is that of a spouse, not a child. PE is, and always has been, "mature". The situation is, and has been, possible because one council and one proistameno worked toward maintaining harmony and progress in the community. The construct was that time, talent and treasure would go where it was most needed at any given juncture. Did it always work perfectly? No, nothing save Christ is perfect in an imperfect world. The situation here was, however, far preferable to what other communties have experienced, where new church expansions as independent entities fostered long-term rancor, bitterness and divisiveness.

It has further been postulated in this screed that "each community is in danger of becoming an impediment to the growth of the other." HUH? "Impediment to the growth of the other?" It is a well-known saying that "he who asserts, must prove." The point here is that numerous assertions, assumptions and outright fallacies are presented as absolute fact. HOW is each community in danger of becoming an "impediment" to the other? The warning sounds dire; are any examples provided?

Then, we see a stunning about-face! After all the fuss about how the co-mingling has been sooooooo detrimental, we see that these folks want St. Sophia supported by both "parishes". They want a youth program that is unified and supported by both "parishes". First of all, other than the fact that St. Sophia is physically located on the Prophet Elias grounds, who told these people that parishioners who mainly attend Holy Trinity don't support St. Sophia? From where did this factoid emerge? St. Sophia's dinner/fundraiser was held at Holy Trinity this past winter. There were just as many folks there from HT as from PE. Same with the St. Sophia 5K fundraiser this past spring. In terms of youth programs, the assertion is made that "larger programs = more youth involved." So a larger community, that has a choice of two parishes unified in one community provides less involvement, and is terrible in all other facets of the community's church life. Yet it is somehow acceptable and desirable in terms of youth and St. Sophia school? Presumably, though, these people would not want festival funds, or are those the exception as well? The logic to all this is profoundly elusive.

Those of us who grew up in this community feel these churches in our marrow. We were perhaps baptized at Holy Trinity, married at Prophet Elias, attended our grandparents' and parents' funerals at one church or the other. The walls of both churches speak to us. The names of those who have gone before us are inscribed upon the stained glass and cornerstones of BOTH churches. They found a better, if not always perfect, way for a Greek Orthodox community to grow and prosper. And they expected us to carry on their work.

Out of the Closet at Last!

What has been a poorly kept secret is now out in the open for all to see. Of course the movers and shakers behind this scheme have played their cards close to the vest, and it is fascinating that this "group of concerned parishioners who love our Church and Community..." do not have the courage of their convictions in that their names are, as usual, not signed on this 'manifesto' that they are circulating. In reproducing it for the blog, TOCB has endeavored to keep all grammar, syntax, font style and emphasis as close to the original as is possible when converting text to the Internet. We invite your comments, tocbslc@gmail.com.

INDEPENDENCE OF PROPHET ELIAS PARISH

WHAT WE ARE:

We are a group of concerned parishioners who love our Church and Community, and who wish to see the community thrive and grow as it should and could. We believe the only way this can happen is for the two Churches to operate independently of each other. We therefore call on the Parish Council to recognize the reality and inevitability of this and begin the process of calmly and thoughtfully brings about the independent status of both Parishes from the current two church/one parish system.

WHAT WE ARE NOT:

We are not people who seek controversy or a fight.
We do not come before you with personal agendas or vendettas.
We do not wish to imply anything negative about this or any prior Priest, Parish Council or President.

WHY?

TO BECOME CANONICALLY CORRECT WITH THE ARCHDIOCESE FOR BOTH CHURCHES. THIS IDEA HAS THE FULL SUPPORT OF AND HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY THE ARCHDIOCESE FOR YEARS.

ALLOW THE PARISH PRIEST TO TRULY BECOME THE SHEPHERD OF HIS FLOCK, WITH NO DISTRACTIONS OF HAVING TO SERVE TWO DIFFERENT CHURCHES WHERE ONE FEELS CONSTANTLY SHORTED.

TO ALLOW TWO INDEPENDENT PARISHES COUNCILS: A BETTER WAY TO MANAGE THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION OF EACH PARISH, BY GETTING MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CHURCH OPERATION, AND ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF EACH PARISH IN THE MOST TIMELY FASHION.

TO HELP MAKE STEWARDSHIP THE ONLY WAY TO FUND THE PARISH’S DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION.

AS IN ANY PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIP, AS THE CHILD GROWS TO MATURITY IT BECOMES TIME TO MOVE ON AND BECOME INDEPENDENT. PROPHET ELEAS WAS BORN FROM THE HOLY TRINITY COMMUNITY AND NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED TO GROW ON ITS OWN. EACH COMMUNITY IS IN DANGER OF BECOMING AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE GROWTH OF THE OTHER!

INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE IDEA OF A SEPARATE CORPORATION FOR THE COMMUNITY WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE ARCHDIOCESE, LET US WORK TOGETHER FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF PROPHET ELIAS.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THE NEW HOLY TRINITY PARISH COUNCIL THE TIME AND THE ABILITY TO INVOLVE MORE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAN BEST MANAGE THE PROPERTIES OF THE PARISH AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THAT PARISH, THEREFORE ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR A SEPARATE CORPORATION.

ST. SOPHIA SCHOOL WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY TWO PARISHES, BETTER THAN ONE ALONE CAN DO.

TO ALLOW EACH PARISH TO GROW INDEPENDENTLY IN THE DIRECTION IT FEELS LED (BY GOD) TO PURSUE. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SPIRIT OF COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES BUT A MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE ATTITUDE, MUCH LIKE THAT SEEN WITH THE PHILOPTOCHOS. THE INITIAL RANCOR WOULD FADE AS PEOPLE SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE TWO BODIES WORKING INDEPENDENTLY FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR PEOPLE.

UNIFIED YOUTH PROGRAM. EACH PARISH WILL SHARE THE COST OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMS, TO INCLUDE A PAN-ORTHODOX SPORTS LEAGUE. LARGER PROGRAMS = MORE YOUTH INVOLVED. THE COST OF A YOUTH DIRECTOR, WHO DEVELOPS PROGRAMS, COULD BE SHARED BY BOTH PARISHES.

RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE’S NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT. THE MORE PEOPLE THAT GET INVOLVED, THE MORE PROGRAMS EACH PARISH WILL OFFER, AND THUS MEET THE NEEDS OF MORE PARISHIONERS.

WHY NOT???

"There's A Sucker Born Every Minute"

P.T. Barnum may not have said what has been attributed to him but there is little doubt our current situation lives up to his profession. Barnum, famous founder of Barnum & Bailey Circus, would be proud to witness this ongoing circus. He would also be eager to do business with us as we are the easily taken suckers.

Our local ring leader along with his counter part in Denver have purportedly exchanged written correspondence regarding the now forgotten special general assembly and the establishment of the defunct corporation. This correspondence is apparently classified as it has not been shared with the members of the community. We ask to see it, the ring leaders deny our request, we don't say or do anything. We are the suckers.

Our local ring leader stands up at the latest general assembly and asserts that he will "personally" write the letter to the metropolitan requesting the assignment of Fr. Mario as an assistant after two motions to that effect were overwhelmingly passed. Almost one month later, no letter has been written. We ask, this time the local ring leader says he will act, nothing happens, we don't say or do anything. We are the suckers.

We have been told about letters written and letters received. We have asked for answers to no avail. The ring leaders, both here and in Denver, remain silent working their back room shenanigans to further their divisive agenda. We do nothing to hold them accountable. We are the suckers.

Barnum could take this show on the road and make a killing. Here's an idea. Let's cut out the middle man and take this show on the road ourselves. This circus is like one never seen or experienced before. We have the perfect ring leaders. We could make a killing and Barnum would be proud.

No Response? C'mon... You're kidding right?

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Armaou's letter has fallen on deaf ears. Anyone expecting the courtesy of a response to any request is only setting themselves up for disappointment. The current regime has no intention of responding to requests from members of the community.

To be fair, the regime did respond to some members of our community by listening to their concerns at the last parish council meeting. True to the words of the president of our community spoken at the last general assembly, representatives of a group wishing to see Prophet Elias function as an independent parish were present at the June 4 meeting. To say then that all requests go unheard is unfair.

The more accurate statement would be that requests that don't fit the agenda of the regime, and especially the agenda of this Proistameno, go unheard. The division of this community fits right in with the agenda of this Proistameno. Subsequently, two spokesmen from the apparent masses (about 80 people attended their three meetings) in favor of the division were invited to attend the last parish council meeting.

As an aside, at the general assembly when specifically asked who was behind this proposed division, no one seemed to know. Fast forward two weeks and magically we now know at least two who are spearheading this massive (again, about 80 people) movement. No doubt, after the general assembly private investigators were retained to work around the clock and ultimately find the two spokesmen. Ironically, these two spokesmen were in attendance at the general assembly and remained silent during the discussion. Had they only had the courage of their convictions much investigation time could have been saved.

Having digressed, back to the topic at hand. You can only expect responses to requests if this Proistameno deems your request valid. Apparently Mr. Armaou's requests don't further the regime's agenda so, in the immortal words of Seinfeld's soup Nazi, NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

When are we going to wake up and take back our community? The injustices perpetrated on our community and its members have been tolerated enough. The time has come to stand up and not allow this regime to ignore what we have asked them to do. Ask the regime how many of the directives mandated at the last general assembly have been completed. If you dare ask, you will find that only those things forwarding the agenda of the regime and especially this Proistameno have been done. If we continue to remain silent we deserve what we get.

Letter to N. Varanakis

June 3, 2007

Mr. Nick Varanakis, Parish Council President
Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Dear Nick,

Immediately following the General Assembly of May 21, 2007 (exactly two weeks ago) I wrote you commending the success of the meeting. I also kindly requested a copy of the video made of the meeting and that the letter written by our Proistameno to His Eminence regarding the assignment of Fr. Mario as a third priest for our community be made public in the June Messenger. To my dismay I have received no response from you.

I have received and read the June Messenger and while you mention in your letter to the parish the pavilion and dome construction, you make no mention of the letter requesting assignment of Fr. Mario. Is the assignment of another priest to our parish, which we so desperately need, a lesser matter than the others or is this yet another attempt to keep the members of this community in the dark?

It is my understanding, when a General Assembly mandates an action that mandate holds and must be carried out unless another General Assembly mandates otherwise. Was the letter written? If it was written, what did it say and why was it not made public? WHY ALL THE SECRECY? As a community we are entitled to know. This is not a matter between 15 people, the Proistameno and the Metropolitan. THIS IS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY!!! You, the parish council and the Proistameno have no right whatsoever to play hide and seek once again.

Since tomorrow you have a parish council meeting, I would again reiterate my requests of TWO WEEKS ago. Please make available to me and anyone who requests, the video of the General Assembly AND please publish the letter supposedly sent immediately following the meeting by our Proistameno requesting the assignment of Fr. Mario to this community.

The above requests are relatively simple and I see no reasonable reason why they can’t be fulfilled. The practice of ignoring requests and silence will not make the issues go away. Be a president to the people who have given you their trust. Let’s get away from the silence and secrecy that has been a clergy privilege for years now. ENOUGH!!

It is my understanding that His Eminence will be in Ogden for the choir conference on June 15-17. I would like to request a meeting with him while he is in the state.

I await your quick response and resolution with regards to my requests after tomorrow’s meeting.

Respectfully,

Yannis Armaou

Cc: His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah
Rev. Alexander Karloutsos
Rev. Michael A. Kouremetis
Rev. Matthew Gilbert