5 Keys To The Bible, by Fr. John Romanides

[Sean]

Overall, this is a very good article by Fr. John Romanides. It accurately conveys the cardio-centric nature of Orthodox spirituality and the teachings of uncreated Grace, as opposed to the Augustinian heresies. However, his comments towards the end of the article about hell and the devil could be dangerously misconstrued and are very unhealthy to dwell upon. I wished to make this disclaimer before the usual suspects who are entrenched in the Western captivity of the Church start calling me a heretic, or projecting Fr. Romanides' writings onto HOCNA's confession of Faith:

5 Keys To The Bible, by Fr. John Romanides

The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion.
In John 17, Christ prays for unity in the cure of glorification, not for divided Churches.

We also begin with the key to the Bible which is the cure of the sickness of religion. This sickness from the very beginning took over the society of the Carolingian Franks. This is in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks who were Orthodox Christians, as we shall see. The Carolingians knew only Augustine till the 12th century. So the difference between these Frankish races is that the one supported the cure of the sickness of religion and the latter group became the great supporters of the causes of the sickness of religion which their Neo-Platonic form of Christianity has been.

That religion is a sickness with a specific cure is known from the tradition of the Old and New Testaments. However, that this sickness and cure exists in the Bible is known only to those who know that it is there and know how to use the Bible as a guide to said cure. For this reason the Bible is a closed book to all others, even to most Jews and Christians today. This means that Jews who accept the Old Testament alone, or Christians who accept both the Old and the New Testament, yet are not in the process of being cured under the guidance of one already cured, i.e. "glorified" (1 Cor. 12:26), automatically and unknowingly distort these books into supports for the sickness of religion, rather than its cure. Many such students of the Bible become Fundamentalists and at times quite dangerous. On the other hand the critical Biblical scholar, who uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to understand the Bible, cannot complete his task unless he knows the existence of the sickness of religion and its cure, and indeed in a Bible which is supposed to be his specialty. This holds especially true for those Orthodox 'scholars' who do not know that an Old and New Testament term for theosis is glorification.

The Five Keys to the Bible

What is missing in the work of such Biblical scholars and especially of those who work within and under the weight of the Franco-Latin Augustinian tradition, are the following five keys:

1) That the very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim "there is no God except Yahweh" means. Not knowing this fundamental first key one cannot know the second key:

2) That there is a clear distinction between Biblical terms which denote that which is "uncreated" and that which is "created." Not knowing this context one cannot know the third key to Biblical terms:

3) That "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him." In other words there is no similarity whatsoever "between the created and the uncreated." Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification. An integral and essential part of knowing these foregoing three keys is the fourth key:

4) That the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages "the transformation of selfish happiness-seeking love" into "the selfless love of one's own crucifixion which is glorification." This glorification, therefore, is not only that of the Lord of Glory Incarnate, "but also that of all prophets and apostles (sent ones) before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory." These four keys become the fifth contextual key of cure.

5) That "the expressions about God in the Bible are not intended to convey concepts about God. They act only as means to guide one to the purification and illumination of the heart and finally to glorification by the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory which is to see Him by means of His uncreated glory or rule" and "not by means of ephemeral created symbols and concepts about Him" as is the case in the Augustinian tradition.

In John 17, Christ prays for the cure of the glorification of His disciples and their disciples, not for divided Churches — indeed not for traditions which have not the slightest idea what the cure of glorification is.

Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine

In sharp contrast to these five keys are the 5th century writings of bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430) which survived the capture of his city by the Vandals in 430 AD. Augustine died during the siege on August 28, 430. Augustine writes that his Archbishop of Carthage Aurelius had commanded him to present his book De Trinitate to him for examination[ 16 ] but we have no record of the result of this action. Both Arius and Eunomius were condemned by the First (325) and Second (381) Ecumenical Councils respectively for teaching that the Messenger Logos Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush is a creature. Augustine, of course, believes that the Logos is indeed uncreated. However, he came up with his own innovation that the whole Holy Trinity appeared to Moses and the prophets by means of such an angel or angels which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then passes back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished. Evidently Archbishop Aurelius heard about this and possibly also Augustine's teaching about original sin and predestination and wanted to see for himself.

Augustine's writings found their way to parts of the West Roman provinces. St. John Cassian (circa 360-433), former ascetic in the deserts of Egypt and then deacon of the Patriarch of Constantinople St. John Chrysostom, challenged Augustine's teaching about original sin and pre-destination without mentioning him. The teachings of Augustine on these points were condemned by the Council of Orange in 529. Augustine's writings completely captured the 8th century Carolingian tradition which knew basically only Augustine until the 12th century. At that time the Franks acquired a translation of St. John of Damascus' "Book on the Orthodox Faith" which they simply understood within their own Augustinian categories. By the 11th century the Franks had taken over all of Western Europe, except Spain, by either conquest or diplomacy. The Spanish Romans under Arab rule were still under the direct surveillance of the Roman Emperor of Constantinople New Rome. The Umayad Arabs of Spain and the Abbasid Arabs of Damascus and then Baghdad called their Roman Orthodox subjects Melkites, i.e. those who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome Constantinople.

According to this Augustinian tradition God supposedly brings into existence creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non-existence after their mission of conveying messages and visions has been accomplished. Higher than this revelation by means of such ephemeral creatures are, according to this tradition, the concepts which God supposedly injects directly into the human intellect.

Biblical scholars who either accept this tradition or believe that this is actually what the Bible is saying, unknowingly contribute to the concealment of both the sickness of religion and its cure and so the correct reading of the terms used in the Bible to denote the difference between what is "created" and "uncreated." What is worse, the adepts of such interpretations of the Bible think that the biblical writers themselves believe that God can be expressed with words and indeed conceived by the human intellect, not perfectly, but at least approximately.

In sharp contrast to this type of tradition is that of the Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. Only those prophets, apostles and fathers who have reached glorification, both before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory, can know what glorification means and how to lead others to this cure and thus to the correct distinction between the created and the uncreated in the Bible.

Therefore, both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, who have been victims of Augustinian and Carolingian presuppositions, become prone to misunderstandings of what they read in the Bible, especially when terms and symbols denoting glorifications which produce prophets are alluded to. A classical example is 1 Cor. 12:26. Here St. Paul does not write, "If one is honored," but "If one is glorified," i.e. has become a prophet. To be glorified means that one has seen the Lord of Glory either before His incarnation or after, like Paul did on his way to Damascus to persecute the Incarnate Lord of Glory's followers. Another example is the phrase "kingdom of God" which makes it a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is amazing is that the term "kingdom of God" appears not once in the original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the "rule" or "reign of God" is the correct translation of the Greek "Basileia tou Theou," Vaticanians, Protestants and even many Orthodox today, do not see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see God's ruling power, was fulfilled during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e. as the source of God's uncreated "glory" and "basileia" i.e. uncreated ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and covered the three of them during the Lord of Glory's Transfiguration. It was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from Its Egyptian slavery and lead It to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text does not speak about the "Basileion (kingdom) of God," but about the "Basileia (rule or reign) of God," by means of His uncreated glory and power. At His Transfiguration Christ clearly revealed Himself to be the source of the uncreated Glory seen by Moses and Elijah during Old Testament times and who both are now present at the Transfiguration in order to testify to the three apostles that Christ is indeed the same Yahweh of Glory, now incarnate, Whom the two had seen in the historical past and had acted on behalf of Him.

The Vaticanians have, or used to have, a tradition of identifying their Church with the earthly kingdom established by Christ with the Franco-Latin Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Emperor and Bishop of Rome.

Neither Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible. But what is worse, many of them allow themselves to look upon others as either among God's chosen ones (like themselves), or else not chosen and therefore destined to hell since all have supposedly inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve. Also, they continue with Augustine, that a certain number of those who have inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve are, like themselves, among the ones chosen by God for salvation without any merit of their own. God chooses them, in spite of their inherited guilt, to replace that number of angels which had fallen. Because of this paganism, Franco-Latin Christianity was destined to lose ground before the onslaught of modern science and democracy. Chosen ones can never be part of a democracy.

Augustinian Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as He loves the saint. "God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the faithful" (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words hell is a form of salvation although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain inoperative in their final "actus purus happiness" like the God of Thomas Aquinas.

The question at hand is not, therefore, whom God loves and saves. God loves all and God saves all. Even human doctors are morally obliged to cure all patients regardless of who and what they are. From this viewpoint hell is indeed salvation, but the lowest form of it. One either chooses or one does not choose to be cured from the short-circuit which makes one religious. The one who chooses cure exercises himself like an athlete who follows the Lord of Glory's directions for purifying his heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." One cooperates with Christ in the purification of one's heart and in acquiring the illumination of the unceasing prayer in the heart. This allows love to do away with self-centeredness and selfishness, but at the same time increases one's dedication to destroying the work of the Devil. When God sees that one is ready to follow the cure which will make him selfless He guides him into the courtyard of glorification and takes him from being a child to manhood, i.e. prophethood (1 Cor. 13:11). One begins with sick love concerned with one's own salvation and graduates into selfless Love which, like Saint Paul, would forego one's own salvation for that of others. In other words one either chooses cure or refuses cure. Christ is the Doctor who cures all His patients to that degree of cure they accept, even that of hell.

[GOCTheophan]

Overall, this is a very good article by Fr. John Romanides. It accurately conveys the cardio-centric nature of Orthodox spirituality and the teachings of uncreated Grace, as opposed to the Augustinian heresies. However, his comments towards the end of the article about hell and the devil could be dangerously misconstrued and are very unhealthy to dwell upon. I wished to make this disclaimer before the usual suspects who are entrenched in the Western captivity of the Church start calling me a heretic, or projecting Fr. Romanides' writings onto HOCNA's confession of Faith:

HOCNA do seem fond of Professor Romanides' writings however the GOC-CII in the USA give a link to the Romanity site on their website (though I, and I think Cyprian has joined me on this- are we the usual suspects?- have expressed grave concern over that fact).

The Fifth Ecumenical Council states thus

"We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy fathers Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."

Furthermore, the sentence of the Council Fathers themselves says:

"Moreover several letters of Augustine, of most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops, were read, showing that it was quite right that heretics should be anathematized after death."

That is the voice of the Church on St Augustine. Now which should we listen too? The schismatic at the very least Romanides or the Fifth Ecumenical council?

Where does St Augustine teach that heresy of Created Grace?

What exactly is this "Western Capitivity" of the Church? To be honest the idea seems to come from St Vladimir's Seminary which is quite involved in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

Can you show me where let us say Metropolitan Gregory of Messenia or St Theophan of Poltava (two Orthodox hierarchs most likely to come under attack for somehow being captive to the west) have been involved in Ecumenism?

The whole idea of the "Western Captivity" seems to me to have been cooked by renovationists in order to reconstruct Orthodoxy in the depraved image of 20 th century man...But I have been wrong before.

Theophan.

[Cyprian]

Dear Theophan,

Yes, the Boston monastery of Fr. Panteleimon and his followers in HOCNA are openly quite fond of Romanides, as HOCNA clergy admitted to me on multiple occasions.

Not surprising, since Romanides was a professor at Holy Cross in Brookline during the 60's when Panteleimon was a New-Calendarist. Apparently Fr. Romanides poisonous teachings had a profound influence on Panteleimon, which unfortunately he and his HOCNA group have never shed.

Romanides is more than a schismatic, Theophan. He is an ecumenist heretic, who was a member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC).

The World Council of Churches appears to have canonised him as one of their saints:

YEARBOOK 2002:
OBITUARIES
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/yearbook ... aries.html

The saints who joined the church triumphant in 2001 included leaders whose lives and witness had contributed significantly to the Christian movement of the 20th century and suggested new directions for the faithful:

Ioannis Romanides, an Orthodox priest and theologian who was a member of the WCC's central committee, died in Athens on 1 November at the age of 75. He had been involved in the WCC from its founding and was active on its governing bodies and working committees over five decades. Father Romanides devoted his energy to the cause of Christian unity throughout his career and held a wide variety of positions in his church and the ecumenical movement. He made substantive contributions in the field of inter-religious dialogue.

Unfortunately, our friend Sean is unable to adequately recognize and address the heresies of his own group HOCNA, so it appears that his only resort is to engage in a diversionary tactic of slandering the holy saints of God, while promoting heretics. Changing the subject will not make the heresies of his group disappear.

In another topic we were beginning to address the Trinitarian heresies of groups like HOCNA when it comes to their rejections of certain holy icons, and once again he felt the need to attack the most-blessed Augustine of Hippo, by citing the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea, known for his iconoclasm.

Now he resorts to unfounded attacks on St. Augustine of Hippo by promoting a World Council of Churches "saint" and New-Calendarist ecumenist heretic, Professor Ioannis Romanides, also known for slandering the saints, and defending heretics anathematized by the Holy Oecumenical Synods.

Cyprian

[Sean]

In another topic we were beginning to address the Trinitarian heresies of groups like HOCNA when it comes to their rejections of certain holy icons, and once again he felt the need to attack the most-blessed Augustine of Hippo, by citing the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea, known for his iconoclasm.
Cyprian

It's funny that you didn't cite what I quoted by Eusebius and why. I was quoting his commentary on the Old Testament Theophanies of Our Lord, which Augustine of Hippo falsely claimed were angels sent by God, and not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I acknowledged in a disclaimer after I quoted Eusebious that he was an Arian, but that his teachings in this regard were supported by the teachings of the Church. Your making such a generalization which would seem that I was defending an Arian, instead of quoting his work (the earliest written history of the Church), shows your disingenuousness.

Fr. Romanides was a professor at Holy Cross Seminary when the Elder and many of our senior clergy were still with the New Calendarists. Although Fr. John was not an Old Calendarist, he was sympathetic with our clergy in what they were fighting when they were in seminary, and for his traditionalist leanings, he was railroaded out of the school. The WCC paints a much different picture of Fr. John than what the reality of his involvement actually was. It is like the MP appropriating the relics of Catacomb Saints, claiming them as their own.

Fr. John was unfortunately involved in the dialogue between the World Orthodox and Monophysite participants in the WCC. Like so many, he was fooled by their piety, and their oversimplified apologetics which falsely made the claim that the "miaphysite" confession of faith was identical to that of the Orthodox. I know from speaking with many clergy who knew Fr. John that he was not a branch theorist, and had nothing but bad things to say about his own bishops. He got in a screaming match with Fr. Stephanoupolis (the father of George Stephanoupolis of the Clinton cabinet) over ecumenism at a conference in the 1980's. It is tragic that he never left his bishops, but towards the end of his life, he did contact Met. Ephraim and told him that he supported our cause.

Theophan, forgive me for that line about "the usual suspects," it was very obnoxius and un-Christian. The Western Captivity of the Church is not something concocted by renovationists. The renovationists simply started using the term to justify their modernism when they appropriated certain aspects of the Kollyvades movement to suit their purpose. The Western Captivity of the Church was a very real period in Church history. From the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, Orthodox theology was categorized and systematized along western paradigms due do Latinizing and Protestantizing influences on the clergy. This is directly related to the Turkocratia and the reforms of Peter the (not so) Great.

Patristic texts were cross-referenced with footnotes quoting German protestant theologians, the works of Roman Catholic mystics became popular reading, the Holy Icons started to be depicted in so-called "soft-style" and people were only going to confession and communion four times a year. Then, in the eighteenth century the Church saw the revival of patristic theology through Holy Fathers like St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos, St. Makarios of Corinth, St. Kosmas Aitolos, and St. Athanasios of Paros. They are now known as the Kollyvades movement, because on Mt. Athos they correctly opposed the serving of Pannikhidas on Sunday, the day of Resurrection. They also advocated the ancient practice of frequent communion.

Blessed Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky was one of the later Holy Fathers who fought to end the Western Captivity rampant in the Russian Church. He was at the forefront of the movemnt to restore the Patriarchate in place of the Synodal period of Russian Church history, which was modeled by Peter the Great after the German protestants. In the theological seminaries, he wished to reprint patristic works which excluded footnotes full of crossreferences with protestant theologians, and replace them with crossreferences from the Divine Services which teach the very same theology as the Fathers.

Fr. John Romanides, when he submitted his doctoral thesis at the theological seminary in Thessaloniki was told that he had to rewrite it because it quoted extensively from St. Symeon the New Theologian. According to the board that was reviewing his thesis, St. Symeon was not an accredited Theologian, so he could not cite his works.

Unfortunately, the Kollyvades movement was out of favor (which is no longer the case) on the Holy Mountain at the beginning of the twentieth century. This coincided with the schism of the State Church of Greece, and many of the bishops and senior founders of the True Orthodox Church of Greece came from the Holy Mountain. This is why many Old Calendarists unwittingly still use all the western paradigms, typical of the period of Captivity.

[GOCTheophan]

I
Theophan, forgive me for that line about "the usual suspects," it was very obnoxius and un-Christian.

It wasnt that obnoxious and anyway I capable of being a lot more obnoxious so I am not in a position to attack anyone on that front.

Theophan.

[Cyprian]

It's funny that you didn't cite what I quoted by Eusebius and why. I was quoting his commentary on the Old Testament Theophanies of Our Lord, which Augustine of Hippo falsely claimed were angels sent by God, and not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Dear Sean,

Your assertions are false on both counts. You have misrepresented the view of St. Augustine, slandering the saint yet again. May God pardon your blasphemies, and free you from the clutches of your Ario-Pelagian teachers in HOCNA.

Eusebius of Caesarea did not have an Orthodox understanding of the Theophanies of the Old Testament, as you maintain, but a most unorthodox and Arian position. This position is echoed by your heretical teachers in HOCNA, which teachings of theirs you have faithfully presented to us on this message board.

I acknowledged in a disclaimer after I quoted Eusebious that he was an Arian, but that his teachings in this regard were supported by the teachings of the Church.

To be blunt, you are simply wrong. Perhaps if you spent less time reading the heretical writings of Eusebius and Romanides, and "priestmonk Haralampus" of HTM, and read more of the Holy Fathers, you would recognize this.

Then, in the eighteenth century the Church saw the revival of patristic theology through Holy Fathers like St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos, St. Makarios of Corinth, St. Kosmas Aitolos, and St. Athanasios of Paros

St. Nikodemos of Athos, you say? Might this be the same St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite that frequently quoted Augustine in his writings, and placed the following about Augustine in his Synaxaristes?

In memory of our father among the saints, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

Here is the Troparion St. Nikodemos inserted:

You were enflamed by the love of God, you demonstrated to be all splendid, blessed Augustine.

Blessed Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky was one of the later Holy Fathers who fought to end the Western Captivity rampant in the Russian Church.

"Blessed Met. Anthony" you say? Would this be the same Met Anthony who twice cites examples of "Blessed Augustine" in The Dogma of Redemption?

Tell us, Sean, was St. John of San Francisco one of the captives of this "Western captivity"?

Fr. Neketas Palassis, a key HOCNA figure from the beginning, dedicates his Orthodox Christian Witness to the saint. His flock chants hymns to St. John every week.

St. John of San Francisco commissioned a service to be compiled for St. Augustine, and presented it to the ROCOR synod of bishops in May of 1955, where it was approved.

The HOCNA heretics are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Their feigned veneration of the saints is laced with rank hypocrisy, and in this they actually bring dishonour upon themselves, not the saints.

HOCNA vainly pretends to honour the memory of St. Nikodemos, but they reject the saint's veneration of Augustine. They defend the memory of Met. Anthony, but they can't even bring themselves to address the saint by his common title, Blessed Augustine, as Met. Anthony did. In vain do they pay honour to St. John Maximovitch, when they dishonour him by rejecting the saint which he venerated.

I pray that no one be taken in by the poisonous deceptions and contradictions that emanate from this heretical crew.

Cyprian

[Sean]

Your assertions are false on both counts. You have misrepresented the view of St. Augustine, slandering the saint yet again. May God pardon your blasphemies, and free you from the clutches of your Ario-Pelagian teachers in HOCNA.

Eusebius of Caesarea did not have an Orthodox understanding of the Theophanies of the Old Testament, as you maintain, but a most unorthodox and Arian position. This position is echoed by your heretical teachers in HOCNA, which teachings of theirs you have faithfully presented to us on this message board.

I acknowledged in a disclaimer after I quoted Eusebious that he was an Arian, but that his teachings in this regard were supported by the teachings of the Church.

To be blunt, you are simply wrong. Perhaps if you spent less time reading the heretical writings of Eusebius and Romanides, and "priestmonk Haralampus" of HTM, and read more of the Holy Fathers, you would recognize this.

Let us now answer these accusations by quoting the actual passage I took from Eusebius' History of the Church, and by quoting the Fathers of the Church and Augustine of Hippo, instead of resorting to your name-calling and accusations without any backing.

Let us begin with Eusebius of Cappadocia:

For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance of some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when the God and Lord who judgeth all the earth and executeth judgment is seen in the form of a man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful to call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent Word?
Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, “He sent his Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”

To corroborate this, St. Irenaeus of Lyon says:

All the visions of this kind [i.e. in the Old Testament] refer to the Son of God, in His being with people and speaking to them. Certainly, it is not the Father of all, the Creator, for He is never seen by the world... It was not the Father who stood in a specific place and spoke with Abraham. That was the Word of God, who was always with mankind, foretelling what was to come and acquainting man with God."

St. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho writes:

Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who according to His will His Son, being God also, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; Whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; Who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we have thus comprehended the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: "And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of Heaven."(Gen. 19:24)

St. John Chrysostom says of the Hospitality of Abraham:

Christ appeared to thee, O marvelous man, escorted by two angels, and through hospitality you abode in the same tabernacle with God and the angels. O blessed tabernacle, which contained by dispensation God with the angels!

In contrast, Augustine of Hippo believes not only that the Old Testament Theophanies were wrought by angels, but is even confused as to whether the angels were representations of the Son or the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity:

All those appearances were wrought through a creature. They were wrought by angels. Not only the visible things, but also the world itself was wrought by angels. [The Trinity Bk. 3, Ch. 11.22]

If it was one of the angels, how can anyone easily tell whether the task imposed on him was to represent the person of the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or of God the Father, or simply of the trinity itself who is the one and only God, in saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?” (The Trinity 2.5.23).

[...]but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness [Per subiectam vero creaturam non solum Filium vel Spiritum Sanctum sed etiam Patrem corporali specie sive similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est.]

Cyprian, you should write spin for Fox News. The confession of HOCNA is completely in accord with the Fathers. We are neither Arians nor Pelagians (you should find out what these heretics teach before you accuse others of adhering to their soul-destroying teachings).