Thomas Deretich and Name-Worshipping

[Thomas_Deretich]

12 docs at https://www.homb.org/p/orthodox-teachin ... d.html?m=1

Many others at www.TheWonderfulName.info.

[Jean-Serge]

This site done by GOC-Makarios give a different view point, in particular sources to read into, and allos to read the different versions of HOCNA teachings

https://thetruthhurts278.blogspot.com/

[Thomas_Deretich]

Today, Orthodox Christians celebrate Saint Gregory Palamas’s defense of ancient Scriptural, synodal, patristic, and liturgical teaching. In contrast, that website Jean-Serge refers to represents the resentments of Hieromonk Basil of Boston (later of Toronto) against his ruling bishops, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston and Metropolitan Gregory of Boston, both of whom Basil betrayed. With all his troublemaking writings, Basil never put forward a coherent explanation of Orthodox dogma on Christ’s Harrowing of Hades, the Godhood of God’s energies, the indwelling of God’s energies, the worship of God’s energies, and the veneration of God-given oracles (theoparádota lógia) in which God dwells. Basil largely ignored Saint Gregory Palamas. Basil was theologically unstable. He claimed that HOCNA should endorse theological error to prevent internet attacks from simpletons who did not understand theological specifics. He payed no attention to the actual contradictory opinions and the authoritative setting aside of the 1913 error by the decisions of 1914 and 1921, which brought Orthodox reconciliation. Metropolitan Ephraim and Metropolitan Gregory never promised NOT to defend Orthodoxy, rather, when asked, they stated that they had no intent to stir up controversy. Basil was one of the most guilty in stirring up controversy but never contributing to unity by summarizing the precise and balanced teaching of the Church. The writings of Metropolitan Ephraim and Metropolitan Gregory do not put forward new dogmas, but quote old dogmas and ecclesiastical commentary on them. They have been consistent over the years. I have refuted Basil’s false historical and dogmatic claims and attacks in 40-page letters to Basil, and, when he refused to engage key issues, in writings posted online. Please read Pino’s attached book pp. 135-158 and my attached 50-page draft. Basil is unconcerned that 1913 denied the first doctrine of Orthodoxy: the doctrine of “one God.” So, Basil tries to give the impression that he is concerned with Orthodox doctrine, but he does not genuinely engage with the core dogmatic issues. It is easier to attack and call names to make others seem weird, but it is more difficult to actually read, quote, and follow Saint Gregory Palamas and the patristic consensus. HOCNA defended the patristic consensus on Christ’s Harrowing of Hades and on energies and names and on the reconciliation under the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas (1914-1918) and the reconciliation under Saint Tikhon (1920-1925). Nothing Basil or Makarios of Athens have written or posted online have overturned the theology of Saint Gregory Palamas or the reconciliation of 1920-1925, which the Russian church in the homeland and diaspora held to.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Father Christos Patitsas’s letter on the website rightly states that the notorious May 1913 opinion (by Sergius Stragorodskii) contradicts Palamite Orthodoxy and that Demetrius’s side was the aggressor in 2012. Father Christos’s son’s letter focuses on not being isolated (and unable to find spouses) not on the truth that has been handed down. Father Christos latter betrayed the correct things in his letter by eventually going with the aggressor side. His son betrayed true Orthodoxy and sided with the ecumenists. Basil frequently returns to his insane approach of allowing or even quoting the slanders on “name-worship,” but forbidding HOCNA from defending Orthodoxy or speaking at all on the controversies raised by others. Basil encourages the slanders and forbids Orthodox clarifications. Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto’s 2019 letter is a massive flip-flop, a massive betrayal of what he himself had written on Christ’s Harrowing of Hades and a massive betrayal of the many Orthodox synodal statements on God’s name that he had signed. Metropolitan Philarète of France, sadly, failed to articulate what Orthodoxy teaches and rejects on energies and names. Lastly, Metropolitan Gregory of Boston’s and HOCN’s long letter thoroughly dismantles the very aggressive but theologically incoherent statements on the two issues adopted by the Makarios synod (but obviously written by Basil in his hostile and slanderous style). Everyone should read the entirety of the HOCNA Synod of Bishops’ 2019 letter.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Hieromonk Basil of Toronto and other defenders of Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto's 2019 schism, misrepresent the chronology of events. HOCNA and TOC-Makarios of Athens came into communion in May 2013. Troublemakers on Athos and in Australia threatened Makarios of Athens that they would denounce him over doctrinal issues, which these individuals did not understand (Harrowing of Hades and name-veneration). Many months after the communion started, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston sent Makarios of Athens letters that explained some of the doctrinal issues. Included was some very humble language about not dogmatizing opinions and on not wanting controversy. These were sincere statements by Ephraim that Makarios could have used to calm those who were attacking him without knowledge of the doctrinal issues. However, some of these passage were grossly misinterpreted as a change of stance. They were not. Then some supporters of the schismatic actions of Makarios of Athens and Makarios of Toronto claimed falsely that Metropolitan Gregory had hardened positions. That is false. Makarios of Athens insisted in 2019 (six years after the agreement of May 2013) that HOCNA sign NEW doctrinal statements written by Father Basil that were incorrect on the Harrowing of Hades and name-veneration. HOCNA remained consistent with what it believed in 2013, the two Makarioses changed their stances, and they broke communion on Lazarus Saturday and Bright Tuesday 2019 based on their new, wrong 2019 doctrinal statements that contradicted the communion from 2013 to 2018. There is no question who changed doctrine and who broke communion: Makarios and Makarios. The is no question who remained consistently doctrinally Orthodox: Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston of Blessed Memory, Metropolitan Gregory of Boston, and HOCNA.

SEE

[Thomas_Deretich]

FATHER CHRISTOS PATITSAS'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 2012 CONTAINS LEGITIMATE CRITICISM AGAINST THE ANTI-HOCNA SCHISM

I am not happy with what I am hearing, reading, and seeing. The accusation of heresy is a serious one. I cannot condemn my hierarchs on hearsay. As St. Nicodemus retorted, “Doth our law judge a man before it hear him?” (John 7:51). From the side of the accusers I hear anger. I read letters which mock the bishops for their “wandering synodal chancellery” because they send us letters from different places. I read articles purporting to condemn the “name worshipping heresy” which proclaim Arianism (that the Son of God is only of like essence with the Father, not the same essence). I read ultimatums to our hierarchs to sign an unconditional agreement with a Russian religious department of Moscow (the Synod of 1913) which contradicts the teaching on the energy and essence of God articulated by that pillar of Orthodoxy, St. Gregory Palamas. I see a headlong rush to break off communion with the lawful hierarchs which is reminiscent of the herd of swine possessed with the legion of demons “which ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea.” (Mark 5:13). My questions to the accusers are “Who is chasing you? Who is causing you to depart from the canonical order of the church without so much as meeting with your brother clergy at our scheduled synaxis, October 5th and 6th 2012? Do you have such little regard for your brothers in Christ that you wish to avoid meeting with us face to face as we implore the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. (John 14:26)?” ….. Bishop Demetrius presumably signed this demand unconditionally. Does he now reject the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, the patron saint of the cathedral he abandoned? The Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351 which proclaimed the orthodox theology of St. Gregory Palamas has been universally accepted by the whole Orthodox Church for nearly 700 years. The synod of Moscow of 1913 cannot abrogate it. Our hierarchs reject the false teachings ascribed to the name worshippers in a formal statement of 5/18 September, 2012.