The various and sundry heresies of the group called, "The Holy Orthodox Church of North America" usually referred to as "HOCNA" deserve to be addressed in a separate list subject.
DO NOT call my brother in Christ a heretic!
His heretical opinions are published for all to see, on his website, thanks to none other than you. It was you who brought his name into this, by posting a link here to his website, with his heretical views on iconography.
Do you see how you are not serving anyone's best interest by constantly posting HOCNA propaganda rather than the edifying writings of the saints?
If you simply posted something useful for a change, from the holy fathers, there would be little reason for us to clash.
This article by Paul Azkoul, son of your priest, Fr. Michael Azkoul, is clearly cacodox
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/hospitality.asp
I do not take any pleasure in calling Mr. Azkoul or the clergy in HOCNA heretics. But that is the truthful and loving thing to do. It would be hateful to both them and you to allow yourselves to continue in your delusion and think that your opinions are orthodox.
Furthermore, it would also be unloving to others on this message board to allow the poisonous HOCNA propaganda you post so frequently to go unchallenged.
You quote Augustine of Hippo, the author of not one but at least EIGHT different heresies,
Sean, Sean. The heresies are with your poor priest, Fr. Michael Azkoul, who, sorry to say, is totally subject to the demons.
Once your priest Fr. Michael wrote an open letter to Alexander Schmemann, published in The Orthodox Word, Vol. VI, No. 3 (May-June 1970), where he cites the "Blessed Augustine". But later Fr. Michael fell under the spell of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, and fell so far that he later posited that St. Augustine was the source of all Western heresy!
So why would he call holy father Augustine among the saints "blessed" in one instance, but in another the "source of all western heresy"? Which time was Mr. Azkoul wrong?
This same Fr. Michael Azkoul, bereft of God's grace as a consequence of his calumnies and blasphemies against God's saints, later was forced to publicly repudiate his Darwinism.
Here are his words:
The theory of biological evolution is something with which I wrestled for a long time. What I wrote in Anti-Christianity was my solution at the time. I had read the "hexaemera" of several Fathers and I did not find in them an explicit denial of evolution, of change in nature, the development of species --- except man. I flirted with the idea that Adam and Eve were set aside in Paradise to start again the human race. Were there not people when Christ was born, and was He not a new "beginning"? Besides, would not this situation explain from where Cain's wife came --- from the old race which had not been chosen to share in Adam's privilege. So, I wrote in the book that there was some truth to Darwinism. Since that time, however, I have come to see my error: if evolution is precisely as modern science presents it, then, it is wrong, because it does not take into account that death did not exist before Adam sinned. Animals did not kill each other until that moment. The "catastrophism" of the great Deluge explains the rocks and fossils to which scientists ascribe millions of years. I realized, too, that the cosmic model of the evolutionists cannot be tested, not by their own methods. I am not convinced that God created the world in 6 24 hour days; neither do the Fathers insist upon it. I am certain that the human race originated with one man and one woman; even as it is renewed by One Man and One Woman (the Church).
I hope this frees me from the charge of heresy.
Fr Michael
Fr. Michael Azkoul wrote an essay, published in HOCNA's "The Orthodox Christian Witness", Vol.XXVII (48), Vol. XXVIII (6) and (8), 1994 called:
What Are the Differences Between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism?
In this essay, Fr. Michael is discussing the ransom which Christ paid, and in this context he states:
"In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14)."
What do a couple of the most-eminent theologians of the Church say?
St. Gregory the Theologian
Oration XLV:
"Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether."
St. John of Damascus
Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter XXVII:
"He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant."
That anonymous paper you champion is so poorly written, and is filled with so many slanders, calumnies, and yes even heresies as well, that it hardly needed refuting. If anyone is so naive as to be taken in by the lies contained in that paper, there is nothing we can do for them other than to pray for their deliverance.
That paper you posted is so useless it is no wonder the author chose to remain anonymous!
But you promote it under your own name, and so now we can see that it is you yourself that holds to the calumnies and cacodox opinions contained therein.
These same writings were brought to the Council of Florence to refute St. Mark of Ephesus, who did not recognize the interpolations in St. Epiphanios' writings. St. Nektarios of Aegina devotes a whole chapter to the Old Testament theophanies as being Our Lord in his work on Christology.
Please don't take me for a fool, Sean. I am not naive as to how the HOCNA propagandists operate.
If you have something to prove, give us direct quotes, from the aforementioned saints, in context. Quote the exact words of St. Mark of Ephesus. Quote the chapter from St. Nektarios. Don't just tell us that St. Nektarios devoted a chapter to explaining how Christ is central to OT theophanies, quote for us what St. Nektarios says exactly about the night vision of Blessed Daniel, where the Son of man is brought before the Ancient of days.
You already tried to cite St. Justin and St. Irenaeus on behalf of your cause, but in neither of those two works from which you quoted was the night vision of the Blessed Daniel cited.
You make the ridiculous accusation that those in HOCNA are Arians,
Surely within HOCNA there exists a significant number of unsophisticated folks who, because of their naiveté, aren't even aware of the multiple heresies which the various HOCNA clergy teach. May God be gracious toward them in their simplicity.
If it would be more helpful for me to be more specific, I would say that the particular strain of Arianism HOCNA most resembles are the Homoians, who followed in the footsteps of Eusebius of Caesarea.
But of course, it was you Sean, who made the absurd claim that the Church has always accepted the (heretical) interpretations of Eusebius of Caesarea, with regards to the Old Testament theophanies.
So you yourself Sean bear witness to which form of Arianism is being promoted by your teachers.