Does GOC-Makarios Agree with Condemnation of Name-Worship? What about HOCNA?

Russian Court to Rule on Relics in ROAC
May 31, 2013
US Gov Reports on Religious Liberty Receive Criticism
May 31, 2013

Does GOC-Makarios Agree with Condemnation of Name-Worship? What about HOCNA?

(NOTE: The post has been amended to correct some errors perceived about the Omologist.org website. Sorry for any confusion.)

 

May 31, 2013   As everyone is aware of the controversies in HOCNA, especially the moral charges against Fr. Panteleimon, and the very serious theological charges of the Name-Worship Heresy, it came as a bit of a surprise to some that HOCNA and the GOC-Makarios would enter into Communion.  One of the questions being asked when this took place was, “Does the GOC-Makarios accept Name-Worship as being compatible with the Orthodox Christian Faith?”

On what was initially thought by many to be the closest thing to a GOC-Makarios website (as it was believed by many that the GOC-Makarios had in some sense condemned internt participation), sections of the site have appeared saying “Concerning the Heresy of Onomatolatria” (see here and here for the letters condemning the heresy). Many wonder whether GOC-Makarios officially agrees with the letters and synodal decisions of the Church of Constantionple nearly 100 years ago condemning Name-Worship, as well as agreeing with the Russian Orthodox decisions that followed? Although this appears to be a site that is run by lay people, we wonder if this attitude reflects any popular sentiment in the GOC-Makarios? Does it then follow that there are members of the GOC-Makarios that are against Name-Worship, viewing it as a condemned heresy? If this is so, then, what about the fact that it still seems, that HOCNA hierarchs have made no renunciation of Name-Worship?

During the crisis over the past few years inside HOCNA, the two main issues brought forward were 1) the Moral Conduct of Fr. Panteleimon, and 2) the Issue of Name-Worship Heresy. In deed, the departures of Metropolitan Moses, Bishop Sergios, and Bp. Demetrius, along with a large number of parishes, missions, clergy, laity, and monastics was founded upon these charges. Of course, there were always the issues of HOCNA’s canonical normalcy, that did frequently raise questions among its members (mostly precipitated by the manner in which HOCNA achieved its independence during the reign of Archbishop Maximos, the successor to Abp. Auxentios of Blessed Memory).  Yet, such questions of canonical governance have always, it seems, in Orthodox history been covered over to some degree if many felt there were greater justifications (such as the fight against heresy, etc); whether one agrees with the methods or not, this has sadly been a fact (see the cases of St. Meletios of Antioch, or two patriarchs of the Church of Constantinople during the Acacian Schism, which, while much more serious, do at least do provide a way in understanding our situation in modern times in proper context).

The clergy and laity that left HOCNA when it began to allow, and even teaching in some public form, the Name-Worship heresy, were perfectly not only within their rights, but, under obligation to do so.  One can only hope and pray that in the future, the GOC-Makarios will make more clear its official acceptance or rejection of the condemnation of Name-Worship by the old Orthodox Church of Constantinople (that is, prior to the its fall from Orthodoxy). If the GOC-Makarios does indeed agree with these decisions, why did they not have HOCNA make some form of public statement about this matter?

If there are indeed people in the GOC-Makarios that accept the condemnation of the Name-Worship heresy as outlined by the Patriarchal Letters of Germanos V, and the decisions of the Russian Synod, then, how widespread is this? Does it constitute little more than a minority view?  Has there been pressure put on HOCNA to publicly state its adherents to the decrees? It would seem unacceptable for honest GOC-Makarios bishops, clergy, and laity to remain in communion with HOCNA, and with their fellow members, if they believed that HOCNA embraces an heresy, rejects the decrees of Germanus V, and allows all of this wrong doing to be propagated? Hopefully, as time continues we can see more clarification on these issues.

 

  • Ambrose

    Christ is Risen Fr. Enoch!

    Just to clarify, the http://www.omologitis.org website is not the official website of the Makarian Synod. The official website is http://www.ec-goc.gr, which has no statement of condemnation regarding the Name-worshipping heresy. The website you reference is run by a member of the synod who clearly does not espouse the heresy. We know that many clergymen in the synod of Archbishop Makarios agree with the condemnation as well. However, the synod does not have any official statement on their actual website condemning the heresy. I hope this clarifies things a little bit.

    • HmkEnoch

      We shall see what transpires. You comments are noted. It is difficult to determine, sometimes, what is and isn’t an official GOC-Makarios website; it seemed that the ‘Matthewites’ had a better public relations arm in the English speaking world than the GOC-Makarios! No insult intended!

      • Ambrose

        Christ is Risen Father! I understand where you are coming from, however, the author(s) of the “Young Orthodox Confessors” website state that their opinions are their own and do not necessarily reflect their synod. I can’t remember where on their website I located this “disclaimer”, but if you go through their various links you will come across this as well. My point was simply that a website that isn’t the official representation of a synod cannot make official statements on behalf of the synod. I pray that they indeed accept the condemnation against the heretical teaching and have Hocna follow suit for the sake of all of their salvation.

        In Christ,

        Ambrose

        • HmkEnoch

          I understand. I did update the article sufficiently to reflect this, I hope.

        • HmkEnoch

          Truly He is Risen!

          Thanks for the constructive criticism, Ambrose. It was very helpful. I too pray that the GOC-Makarios does indeed accept the condemnation, and, if so, they can somehow cause HOCNA to follow suit.

          In Christ,

          Fr. Enoch

          • Ambrose

            No worries Father! I too originally thought that it was the official website of the synod. When I saw the statements of condemnation of the Name-worshipping heresy on the site, I quietly hoped that maybe they would force HOCNA to in turn condemn it as well. I became suspicious when they reported that Arch. Makarios was only visiting North America to begin a dialogue with HOCNA when in fact we all knew that he was here to officially concelebrate with their bishops. I understand that it is very difficult to post unbiased material when most of your sources are second hand. We all appreciate both Fr Joseph’s and your labors.

          • HmkEnoch

            Beings partially a new conglomeration site we have to rely on others. There was a disclaimer I did find on the omologitis site; which stated that, though, it was the wish of the people who ran it to make it an official site, their synod had not yet made a decision for this. On the other hand, I’m happy that you were able to send me a link to what looks like the ‘official’ site (since I’m not sure if I had seen it before).

            For what it may matter, I was informed by the Staff of Omologitis that the Holy Synod of the GOC under Abp. Makarios has never repudiated or rescinded these decrees and judgments by the Church of Constantinople under Patriarch Germanos, against Name-Worship, and that they consider them binding. They stated that, the conditions and requirements put upon HOCNA for the communion shall shortly be made public. I believe many others have had a similar response.

            I hope this can happen soon, so the public can see the matter more closely.

            In Christ,

            Fr. Enoch

          • Ambrose

            One can only hope that these conditions require them to put their idea of the “Name” of God to bed once and for all. P.S. You are doing a wonderful job with this site. Numerous people I speak with tell me that they come to this site for the latest happenings in the Orthodox world.

          • HmkEnoch

            Yes, I guess I hear that as well.

          • HmkEnoch

            Well, I’m always happy to have comments that point out any factual errors, and bring supporting evidence (like you did with your link to the GOC-Makarios site). That help me to re-arrange and edit any incorrect matter in the posts/stories, etc. The more this happens, the better, because other and I can learn more.

            In Christ,

            Fr. Enoch

      • Thomas Deretich

        The website Omologitis.org has long said clearly that it is run by laypeople. It is obviously not an official website. Google Translate also mistranslated the Greek work homologiake as “denominational.” That may be an appropriate translation is some Greek contexts, especially when referring to heterodox denominations, but it is obviously incorrect here. Why rely on inaccurate translations from Google computers? The website has both a Greek and an English version. To call the website “Avower” is beyond bizarre. The original NFTU story does not meet basic standards of journalistic competence (or ethics).

        • HmkEnoch

          I ask your forgiveness, Mr. Deretich. I am not a journalist other than in an ‘amateur’ sense. Thus, I have amended the article to reflect more clearly the questions about whether GOC-Makarios rejects the decree against Name-Worship or accepts it, and how this relates, if they do accept the decree to its relationship to HOCNA.

          “The original NFTU story does not meet basic standards of journalistic competence (or ethics).”

          Well as noted, I am little more than an amateur in these matters, and, sadly was under the wrong impression about the Omologitis site, for that I ask everyones forgiveness. It was not with any intentional wrongdoing. I would encourage you, Mr. Deretich, and all other interested parties, to found your own news site for these matters so you can more closely monitor these matters and hopefully, if you succeed, you can do a better job than you believe I am doing. As it is, for one or two people with very limited time to cover a lot of these topics, is difficult enough.

          • Diana Dusheck

            A good journalist would follow the money (not the heresy.)

          • HmkEnoch

            I’m not so much the journalist, as a conglomerator. You’ll have to wait for an investigative journalist to look into the money issue. Though, I admit, like all things it may indeed be an important factor. We’ll have to wait, I guess, and see if the GOC-Makarios makes public conditions and requirements put upon HOCNA for the communion.

            Once again, I don’t know where everyone gets this idea that I’m Rodolfo Walsh. I’m just a spare time amateur.

            When Fr. Joseph has the time to come back after his work schedule becomes lighter, he’ll have to be the one making the phone calls and other sources he knows on this.

            As for now your stuck with the sorry likes of me. Apparently, I’m also stupid and evil (which seems to be the same things as ‘incompetent’ and ‘unethical’ , since I’m the author of the original story, and responsible for it’s original contents before altering).

            Once again, if everyone wants to do some investigative journalism and get a few dozen people, and form a full time 24hr Orthodox new service, they can do it.

            In Christ,

            Fr. Enoch

    • HmkEnoch

      However, the website “Avower” calls itself the ‘denominational presence” of the Goc-Makarios and it has the same listing of the condemnnation of Name-Worship:

      http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=el&tl=en&u=http://www.omologitis.org/%3Flang%3Del&usg=ALkJrhg-HfOalxguDW-t8wOe2xoenbGnjA

      ergo; I must ask, how are we to distinguish between different sites claiming officialness? It seems difficult at times!

  • baracuda

    This is probably the worst site for accurate, unbiased information I’m sorry to tell you father. Some of the people you have on here, i wont say names, are complete idiots with no sense of logic or christian values. I have never seen so many lies and slander emerge from one source. During the heat of the conservatories swirling earlier this year any sensible person who would have read the comments, which contained outright lies at times, would have either cried at the ignorance of your audience or laughed from helplessness. I’ve wanted to write this for so long you have no idea.

    ps

    Tqveni Dedis Prochi Movtyan tqe nabozrebo tqveni dedas sheveci ahhhhhh tqve teslebo

    • HmkEnoch

      We generally don’t moderate comments; not even comments that are critical of the site, posts, or even of other comments. If you want to combat what you believe is something wrong in a post, a comment, etc, you are more than welcome to do so by posting a counter comment, or by opening something upon the forum and explaining what you think is wrong.

      For example, for a long time, I didn’t know that the GOC-Makarios had an ‘official’ site. I thought the closest thing you could get to it was the omologitis site. Well, thanks to the comments in this, I was able to discover what I believe is the official site of the GOC-Makarios, and was thus able to alter parts of the above post/story to reflect that.

      In Christ,

      Fr. Enoch

    • HmkEnoch

      Can you give me some examples of this? Aside from obvious ones that are opinions pieces based on common facts and disputes as to their interpretation? I’m more than willing to alter something if it is factually inaccurate.

      In Christ,

      Fr. Enoch (NFTU Editor)