GOC

[George Australia]

In adopting the so-called New Calendar, a rent was introduced and the conciliar process was ignored. It was not simply a question of why or what 'legal' forms were or were not followed.

Dear in Christ,
Excellently put! Thank you for so eloquently saying what I am trying to say.
The letter of the law was followed while the Spirit of the law was ignored. To respond to the New Calendar by looking for "legalistic" and "canonical" arguments will always be fruitless, and indeed, isn't this precisely what those who introduced the New Calendar did?
Yes, the Calendar of fixed feasts was moved forward by the New Calendarists. But the New Calendarists tolerate the Old Calendarist Churches and monasteries which they recognise, and even have their own Old Calendar Churches and Monasteries- For example, we cannot say that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is completely "New Calendarist" since they have Churches and Monasteries in their own Juristiction which follow the Old Calendar. Even St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco communed New Calendarists. In many cases, I believe this is a more spiritually "balanced" position- the "Royal Path" of the Fathers expounded by Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose, rather than the extreme view that the New Calendarists are outside the Church by virtue of the New Calendar.
They made a mistake. Period.
It is not a serious enough mistake to warrant the title "heretic". Period.
The Calendar does not have to cause schism. Period.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The letter of the law was followed...

George,

You have mentioned this now a few times, so i think I should say that I believe you are mistaken; the "letter of the law" and the spirit were grossly violated by some very sick men. I doubt you would say such things if you new the history on how the calendar was changed and for what reasons.

May the Lord mercy on us all.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear George,

you wrote:

They made a mistake. Period.
It is not a serious enough mistake to warrant the title "heretic". Period.
The Calendar does not have to cause schism. Period.

I guess we can argue this to death. Even upon reading the Sigillion -- English version on p. 285 of The Struggle Against Ecumenism which says:"..the newly invented Paschalion and the new calendar of...the Pope" "..let any such have the anathema and let him be outside the Church..."

To use the language of the past two posts, by the "spirit" of the Law, anyone who follows any part or portion of the Gregorian calendar, thus causing a rent in the liturgical oneness of the church is under the anathema. when it says, "the new calendar" it implies the Paschalion and the Menologion, so any part of it is under the anathema.

to say the New Calendar doesn't warrant a "schism" is incorrect. It is already under the Anathema. No one is calling it a "heresy" as you write. However, the Church hierarchs knew about ecumenism, did they not?
- 1920: EP's encyclical: "To te Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be:
- 1922: EP Patriarch Meletios recognizes the validity of Anglican orders
- 1923: EP Patriarch recognizes the Living Church in Russia
- 1923 Pat. Meletios convenes the Pan-Orthodox Congress with the Churches of Greece, Romania, Serbia, and the Anglican Church
- 1924 Romania adopts new Calendar and in close conjunction with the Uniate prime minister adopts the Western paschalion.

It is clear that ecumenism was brewing. It is clear that according to the precepts of Freemasonry, all religions are equal. Masons were in the State Govt and in the Church by appointments. The aim of Masons like Meletios was to merge the Orthodox Church with the Western heterodox. It is clear that the Calendar innovation was the first step and tool to bring this about. Unfortunately, it back fired because of the millions of pious Christians in Greece who held firm to the True Faith and faced persecution.

You are terribly mistaken to think and promote ideas that the New Calendar is simply a minor "mistake" and that it was not a schism, when it in fact did fall under the Anathemas. In part or in whole, it is clear that any aspect of the Gregorian calendar is under anathema. The Orthodox Bishops in 1935, whom your bishops like to say they derive from in name, i.e. "Floronites", were correct to reaffirm the serious nature of the illness caused by the New Calendar, as a "schism without grace".

If you can't see this, we will have to agree to disagree.

respectfully,

Nectarios

[George Australia]

when it says, "the new calendar" it implies the Paschalion and the Menologion, so any part of it is under the anathema.

Dear in Christ, Nektarios,
Let's assume for a moment that the Sigillion means to say "Pachalion and Menologion."

The Paschalion is the method used for determining the date of Pascha. Therefore the New Calendarists have not adopted the Gregorian Paschalion, since they ce3lebrate Pascha at the same time that we do, and not at the time determined by those who follow the Gregorian Paschalion.

The Menologion is the table of fixed feasts. According to the Gregorian Calendar, the Feast of St. Stephen the protomartyr is December 26th, but Dec 26th is the Synarxis of the Theotokos according to the New Calendarists. According to the Gregorian Menologion, January 1st is "The Solemnity of the Mother of God", but according to the New Calendarist Menologion, it is the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, and of Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom...and so on.....

So in fact, the New Calendarists follow neither the Gregorian Paschalion nor the Gregorian Menologion.

Even if we use the mistranslation of the Sigillion, they have kept the letter of the law.

And because you insist on calling them schismatics and anathemise them, after I have told you my position regarding thew use of such words; I choose to no longer discuss this issue with you. Let's agree to disagree.

George

[gphadraig]

As an aside, may I offer (a belated one to George Australia) everyone a blessed (Civil) New Year..................

And I will return to the thread subject, after tonight's shennanigan's

All the best

[Apologist]

Thank you very much brothers for this conversation, and thank George for his clever conclusion...

I read that the Cross appearances could be natural phenomena...but how???? A twirling sun (blurry perhaps) isn't the same as two clear, humungous shinning vertical bars with a line at the bottom. I agree that they were demonic.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Apologist,

You said:

Thank you very much brothers for this conversation, and thank George for his clever conclusion...

I read that the Cross appearances could be natural phenomena...but how???? A twirling sun (blurry perhaps) isn't the same as two clear, humungous shinning vertical bars with a line at the bottom. I agree that they were demonic.

The Miraculoust Cross event in 1925 occured at around 11:30PM at night, so no sunlight was present

Regarding George's "clever" conclusions, they are incorrect. He claimed a Pan-Orthodox "synod" created the revised Julian; however, it was never considered a synod and even later downgraded its name to that of a "Congress", which BTA included the Anglican Archbishop. None of the representatives at this series of "councils in 1923 were even given the authority by their respective Churchs to make such determinations of a calendar innovation. The Council was a pure act of Masonic shenanigans by an uncanonical Patriarch - Meletios.

Also, despite the fact that some, such as George like to say the Menaion of the "Revised" Julian new Calendar is different from the pure Gregorian Menaion, they essentially run the same for about 800 years, differ slightly for 100 years, and then run identical again. The major Western Feast of "Christmas" was the key "fixing" point to bring unity with the Heterodox West. He ignors the books and writings of his own jurisdiction. (Etna's publication, A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Calendar clearly demonstrates the uncanonical nature of the New Calendar and its violation of Holy Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils, along with the 1593 Anathema.

The Anathema applied to everyone, not just the Latin Church, as it reads: "Whosoever does not follow the Tradition of the Church and all that the Seven Ecumenical Synods have ordained concerning Holy Pascha and the Menaion...let such a one be anathema, excommunicated....

This is also the essential difference between the Matthewite and the Floronite jurisdictions: The original 3 returning hierarches wrote in 1935 that the New Calendar was in Schism without Grace, and then later preached and wrote otherwise, that New Calendar was a Schism, but only in "potential" not in actuality, and therefore still had Grace. Bp. Matthew persisted in maintaining the original ecclesiology of the suffering True Church by stating in writing that the New Calendar was already condemned by 4 Pan-Orthodox Councils, as well as Holy Tradition and all that was needed was for the Church to faithfully enforce the decisions of the Holy Spirit as proclaimed by these Councils. Failure to enforce these decisions was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which in a similar manner would be akin to having to summon a new Ecumenical Council everytime iconoclasm appears.

There should be no doubts to anyone on this List that the New Calendar is not founded in the Holy Tradition of the Church, is in fact contrary to the Tradition, and is in violation of Pan Orthodox Councils -- falling under their anathema, as well serving no good benefit to the Church except to create chaos and bring unity with the Heterodox as the implementing tool of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's infamous 1920 epistle, "To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be".

in Christ,
Nectarios Manzanero