Nick Georgakopoulos commented:
1. The GCT is NOT bound by the Archbishop's Uniform community regulations.
2. Terry Tharrenos is a young and energetic and honest hardworking person, who would be a great catch for any board.
3. Besides what President Skoutakis said last Sunday at the AGM the relationship between the GCT and the Archdiocese with the recent transfer seem to be crap.
4. Offer Terry a spot on the GCT board just to piss the Archbishop off.
Just my thoughts!!
Nikona Georgakopoulos
2. Terry Tharrenos is a young and energetic and honest hardworking person, who would be a great catch for any board.
3. Besides what President Skoutakis said last Sunday at the AGM the relationship between the GCT and the Archdiocese with the recent transfer seem to be crap.
4. Offer Terry a spot on the GCT board just to piss the Archbishop off.
Just my thoughts!!
Nikona Georgakopoulos
What facts theres noting posted except his fugly mug.
ReplyDeleteView in web version. Mobile version is off.
Delete8:06 p.m Fugly ugly mug? Was that necessary you hurt my feelings. At least I have the guts to put my name after everything I write. same cannot be said of our archbishop's ass kissing order-takers / followers. Have a wonderful day!!
DeleteNikona Georgakopoulos
Dude relax its meant in fun. Your right about the ass/boot licking order takers though.
DeleteAlways remember that guys insult each other but they do t mean it and Girls complement each other and they dont mean it.
DeleteLeave Terry where he is in Mississauga. Please and thank you.
ReplyDeleteBy leave him in Mississauga, I mean he is ours, you can't have him. He would definitely be an asset to any board :)
DeleteThe Archdiocese assigns GCT clergy, the GCT pays them and the GCT also pays their necessary obligations to the Archdiocese. They are bound enough, just like every other community. C'est la vie.
ReplyDeleteSotirios in his wisdom has deemed him after 10 yrs as being unworthy to serve in Mississauga, let him if he wants to serve Toronto.
ReplyDeleteIf the Archbishop could he would have taken control of the GCT. Unfortunately he knows he can't . The GCT is best advised to stop paying anything to the Archdiocese for him reneging on his verbal commitment. Let him charge $600 per sacrament then close them all 100% of nothing is still zero. Throw it back in his face then lets see what he does next.
ReplyDeleteNick Georgakopoulos commented on "Some interesting facts by Nikona Georgakopoylos..."
ReplyDelete10 mins ago
C'est la vie , The Archdiocese CANNOT remove a duly elected board as was done in Mississauga. Explain to me why the only mention in the GCT constitution about the church is as follows:
To promote allegiance to the Greek Orthodox faith in order to better observe , preserve and perpetuate its truest and most authentic form? No mention of the Archdiocese or the Patriarch. The GCT membership can vote to sell any and all church properties and the Archdiocese can do nothing about it. Γι' αυτό γλίτωσέ με από το τροπάριο του αφεντικού σου να τα πέι κάπου αλου
Nikona Georgakopoulos
Sorry, I was just speaking in general terms. The Archdiocese constitution is probably a general document. Parish constitutions I am sure can be different but they probably have to follow and not go contrary. That's probably why different Churches have different board sizes, but i am sure they all have to have a quorum when meeting. I am sure it has a provision for sale of assets. If it didn't, it would be asking for trouble. The GCT provision probably can't be way out to left field in comparison. Which is why they were able to sell the houses near Panagia. The GCT may not mention the Patriarch, but I am sure the assignment of Priests and paying of obligations places the GCT under his final jurisdiction. That's why the Serbian bishop isn't sending you Priests. Things may not be mentioned in the GCT constitution, and I am sure other parishes have done the same, but omission is not the same as exemption.
DeleteUnfortunately you are wrong an acceptance of assignment does not in itself mean recognition. May I remind you what happened to Roger's Canada when they argued the same point? Or shall I remind you what Justice Shabbits ruled in Demeris et al v. Hellenic Community et al 2000 BCSC 733 about a community's ability to change going forward?
ReplyDeleteThe GCT has done its homework. A few of us legal people did the research and arrived at the same conclusion.
FYI the GCT bylaws state 2/3rd membership approval to sell. The Archdiocese has none the Archbishop does and continues to do as he sees fit and claims his board made the decision. Unfortunately his board just rubberstamps.
Legal friends of the community
I am not a lawyer so I was just speaking in general terms. I am also not on one side or the other. I just don't like the bickering which is scandalizing people and causing people to leave the Church.
DeleteThe fact that the Archdiocese could issue a sacramemt fee and the fact that recently the GCT had to "settle" with the Archdiocese, (Mr Nikona just posted some interesting info on it), shows that that while the GCT may have some freedom, the parishes themselves have an obligation to function in a similar manner with the rest of the parishes in Canada. Logically speaking, this means the GCT also needs to respect the constitution as the administrator of the 4 Churches. Don't forget, the parishes were founded on the basis of the Church, fundraised out of the basement of St George's 60 years ago. Not based on the fundraising of the GCT whose constitution came later. Panagia was tied to the Archdioces of America from the beginning, whatever came after this does not exempt it. Iakovos naming it his Cathedral (seat of the bishop), further validates this, (somethimg still on the sign today -Cathedral of Panagia) I am not a lawyer, but the law still needs to be logical most of the time. The parishes are under the Church as a whole. The fine print is a whole other argument.
I went to the Archdiocese website and downloaded their constitution. It's called the uniform community regulations and browsed it (it had a table of contents for easy reference). Page 3 has the following:
Section 3: The Community may purchase or acquire real property or sell, mortgage, transfer, dispose or otherwise encumber its real property upon approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the members present at a Community Assembly duly called and convened for that particular purpose and where quorum is maintained during any vote.
If you had done your homework, you would see there is NO CONFLICT. I am not a lawyer and I found this. The most important documents are the constitutions of the Archdiocese and the GCT in this discussion. If you don't compare them side by side, how do you know how the Archdiocese and it's parishes function.
No one is stopping the GCT from functioning and I don't think people want it to dissolve.
If it functions in a healthy way and is financially viable, it can continue to offer its members a voice. I think that's what most people want. Healthy parishes mean we continue our faith and culture at the same time.
I am also not going to get into the history of who did what and who said what. We won't have a beginning or end if we do that.
However, in the end of the day though, the GCT needs to realize it still has a responsibility to the Church as a whole and to its members because the Church is the source of its operating revenues, not the other way around.
I posted an non offensive rebuttal but it wasn't approved. I guess the moderator is a member of the GCT who thinks the GCT is 100 years old. I guess this is the last post....
DeleteΣυγνώμη ρε μεΓΑΛΕ - κυρ δικηγόρε - που ΔΕΝ είμαι ΟΛΗ μέρα πάνω από το κομπιούτερ για να δημοσιεύω ΑΜΕΣΩΣ τις σοφιστικέ γνώσεις και απόψεις σου, μη και σε χάσω από πελάτη... ΝΤΕΝ θα ξαναγίνει αυτό ΠΟΤΕ.!!!
DeleteThe only obligation the GCT has is to its members. The uniform community regulations do not apply to the GCT nor does All Saints which are separate and distinct corporate entities.
ReplyDeleteSo why did the GCT settle in court and follow the uniform community regs? If there’s no obligation for the GCT shouldn’t they have won’t the case easily? But it didn’t and it bent over to Sotirios who loves to brag how he won. Way to represent your members who can’t stand him.
DeleteYa exactly. If there’s no obligation on their part why would the GCT settle then with Sotirios? Why not fight until the end? The board couldn’t possibly be that dumb?
Delete6:48 then why settle with the archdiocese? Why not let the courts decide?
DeleteHow can you have healthy parishes when the Archdiocese sends duds for priests?
ReplyDeleteNot nice to call priests " duds" some may be set in their ways and others too old to teach new tricks.
ReplyDeleteNikona Georgakopoulos
The board of directors voted the first time to take the archdiocese to court then as Nikona stated the directors voted for a shitty deal to get it over and done with. Elections were coming up and the existing directors had term limits which were expiring. They could not run and they knew those that could would sell the GCT out as they in fact did. Read Nikona’s detailed essay to see that again they got the short end of the stick.
ReplyDelete