Always good to read your input. That "name worshipping heresy" was not the whole community of Mt. Athos, though. Just a few monks in the Russian section.
Both letters written to the EP, 1993 and 1999, were representative of the Athos community writ large, and therefore official guidance.
It's important because this official guidance is claiming to be the soul of Orthodoxy. If Athos official guidance has been wrong before, we can dismiss the monks as being simple zealots. But if not, then Orthodox need to sit up straight and pay close attention to what they are warning against, and in fact, side with them.
To everyone: Are there Orthodox who believe after Rome was separated, Athos more or less took her place as an entity that needs to "sign off" in the Orthodox decision making process? (I am aware there are also Orthodox who believe that only after time/reception can we know if a doctrine is true, i.e. 1848 Patriarchal Encyclical).