Time for some more controversy...

[Justin Kissel]

Seraphim,

It is easy to ask questions. It is difficult to give answers.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin,

I'm a bit perplexed by your approach to this. On the one hand, I completely understand where you are coming from. Thinking someone a heretic (even if if you never say so aloud) is a fearful thing, and something we will be judged for--whether we were right or wrong. However, it seems to me that, using your approach, a heretic could go on forever being a heretic and never be condemned by the Church, so long as he remained vague enough, and kept his "official" position orthodox enough.

No, I'm simply arguing that there are problems with the Sigillion itself. Arguing that it's condemning (arguably) a "popular position" (even if not one endorsed by the Pope or his curia) is fine, but implicit to this is the recognition that one is ultimatly not addressing the "enemy" as such, but the periphery of his followers, those who themselves are not following what he is teaching. As such, calling such a condemnation an attack on "Papism" is problematic.

It doesn't matter what the the official position of churches are, if they deny that official position repeatedly and unrepentantly in their words and actions.

If we're talking about the issue of Papism, I'd like to see how the RCC is/was tacitly denying it's "official" position on indulgences or the status of the Papacy.

If we're talking about more modern heresies, that is a different matter. I think our wires might be getting crossed the wrong way here.

"Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the seven Holy Ecumenical Councils have decreed, and the Holy Pascha and calendar which they enacted well for us to follow,"

Not only Pascha, but the calendar in general, is mentioned.

I observed this as well. While it can be argued that the text may be anathematizing the disposal of both (going over to the Gregorian calendar for fixed feasts, AND the Gregorian Paschalion), I doubt this - it would go against the sense of the text, since I somehow doubt it's authors would have said (if asked) "on the other hand, if you only do one of these things, all is well."

btw., good point about the "atheist" remark in the Sigillion. This seems to have been the manner of discourse at the time, which is much courser and shall we say, less delicate than people tend to be now. We are all, to some extent, creatures of our age (for better or for worse.)

But isn't this the exact aim of those who first instituted the new calendar: to destroy the custom of the Church? They didn't adopt the Gregorian Calendar totally... but only because they knew they couldn't get everyone to go along with that. So they did things one step at a time, and any time a major defense was put up, they would say "we will soon discuss it" (though it never got discussed). If they had simply suggested it before a pan-Orthodox council (like they insisted they would--after they had already insistuted it, of course), then that would have been fine. It could have been discussed and we would have been on more sure footing. But it wasn't discussed--not in any major way anyway. What can the word "overthrow" mean in this context, if not what happened in the 20th century?

I agree, that the difference between the "revised Julian calendar" and the "Gregorian calendar" is solely in the minute details - details which in fact will not be born out for some time. While perhaps satisfying the letter of the law, for all practical purposes the "revised Julian" calendar is the Gregorian calendar.

The sticky question though, is whether or not that is enough to still insist they are in fact "the same", for the purposes of understanding the Sigillion as applying to the new calendarists. I'm not proposing to have the answer to that - but I think it's a question which has to be asked, and the answer of course has to be justified.

PS. At the bottom of the document, at this page, the Sigillion is signed by:

Yes, I was aware of the signees. Since this is typically stated to be a pan-Orthodox document (thus of de facto ecumenical status), do you know at what point other Churches (such as the Slavic Churches) consented to this document, or otherwise recognized it's propriety?

Seraphim

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

Thank-you for the information you've provided. It seems remaniscent of a webpage I remember reading on a (apparently?) now defunct website.

Vatican I devotion ascribed to the pope the title "King of Kings" and "'Supreme Ruler of the World." This excessive veneration included appellations such as "Vice-God of Humanity" and "Exalted King of the Universe."

Whose devotion was this? Back in my RC days, even in the arch-"traditionalist" milieu I never heard of anything like this, nor read anything like this in the catechical books or dogmatic works I'd been acquainted with.

My problem with alot of "stories" like this, is that often they are bogus. It's one thing to object to real (or even perceived) error - it's another thing to manufacture nonsense. I have had direct experience with this, both in my days as an RC, and now as one who adheres to the Orthodox faith. I'll give you an example of my meaning...

I was once told by a young Greek lad (who said this on the advice of his "family expert"; many Greek families seem to have one of these) that apparently RC's don't believe in the Parousia, but instead believe in the Pope. Now, I knew this was nonsense, and gently tried to correct this - yet even though he knew I was Roman Catholic, and I explained carefully what the RCC actually believed, he did not believe me - no, he had to "check back" with his cousin, or whoever this font of wisdom was that passed such information on to him.

This experience, and others like it since then, typifies what I mean by "defending the truth" with unworthy arguments, or even just sheer stupidity and beligerance.

There are real reasons why Papism is erroneous, and has consequences down the line which are just as (even more so) ruinous. Truth also has it's positive argument. With such a wealth, such foolisness need not be indulged. Yet, it often is. If one loves justice, he cannot simply want it for his own (whether it be his own people, or his own cause) - he has to want it for all, even those who are his enemies.

The Vatican Newspaper La Civilta Cattolica recorded that the pope was the "Mind of God" and pontificated that "when the pope meditates, it is God Who thinks in him." Bishop Bereaud of Tulle, France, wrote that "the pope was the Word of God made flesh, living in our midst."

Do you have a publication date for this? This is once again, reminicent of the certain website I vaguely remember; if this is where you got this, or a similar source, I have my own doubts that it was direct information then, since it was equally (poorly) attributed. I'm not saying that the info is incorrect, but if you're not preaching to the choir, throwing this stuff out without sufficient background is not going to demonstrate anything.

However, I agree that such ideas probably did come spouting out of the mouths of 19th century ultramontane supporters of the Papacy. You'd also hear ideas coming out of this period, which in essence did reduce the world wide episcopate to a glorified "presbyterate" of the Pope; the Pope being the "vicar of Christ" and the bishops essentially reduced to being the vicars of the Pope.

Moreri (Roman Theologian): "To make war against the pope is to make war against God, seeing that the pope is God and God is the pope."

As ridiculous as ultramontane, papal maximalism got, I have a very hard time believing this quote is genuine - or at least that it's original read this way.

Nicolaus de Tudeschis, in "Commentaria" (lvi, 34): "The pope can do all things God can do."

I'm interested to know who Nicolaus de Tudeschis in fact was, and if he indeed said this, if he was aware that Latin catechisms themselves attribute the creation (among other things) to God alone, this just being one of innumerable things the Lord can do that the Pope cannot.

Pope Leo XIII: "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." (June 20, 1894; Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII: Benziger Brothers, "Reunion of Christendom", p. 304)

Which encyclical? Even if true, quotes like this are near useless, and smack of credibility problems, since it is easy enough to look for a specific encyclical, and simply say which chapter the offending passage was in.

Pope (St.) Pius X: "The pope is not only representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who speaks."

Document? Once again, if genuine this quote would be much more valuable for demonstrating something, if it could be attributed properly.

Not to be outdone, Pope Pius XI declared: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth." (Butler, Scriptural Truths for Roman Catholics: Dr. B. Brewer, Mission to Catholics, Int.)

Not to simply discount information because of who relayed it, but given the poor attribution of this and other quotes, if they are being culled from fundamentalist Protestant material, I'd recommend not taking them seriously (since this particular passage attributes such a source as it's origin.) I will simply say I've seen so much distorted, quoted out of context, and even outright fabricated by these paranoiacs so as to have no confidence in a thing they say, unless it is properly documented. They also indulge in the exact same pattern of shamelessness in discussing Orthodoxy, btw.

Now perhaps it could be argued that this was never "official" teaching, but just like we see today with ecumenism and the ROCOR, often there is "official" teaching and was is strived for.

I have problems believing much of what you quoted is even from credible sources, let alone representative of any official teaching of the RCC. It certainly was outside of my own varied experience of Papism.

btw., so you believe ROCOR is ecumenist? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

As with most information, I just have what I read. The above qoutes are all from a book titled "papal infallibility" published by St. John of Kronstadt Press. I cannot verify the authenticity beyond the book, but knowing a thing or two about the heights vanity and papal pride reached in the Vatican at times through history, I would sooner believe it than not.

In addition, I don't draw as much of a line between "official" RC teaching and what is practiced. While I understand abuse of this position can lead to wrong conclusions, I feel I must also consider that what is "officially" taught is often times not what is taught in practice. Case in point: Bartholomew claimed in an interview that the Monopohysites cannot be joined to the "church" until all seven councils are accepted. In practice however, the Phanar was most responsible for whitewashing the need for this in the agreements that were signed. In this case, I don't believe it is important to Bartholomew (and his ilk) what they say in such "official" interviews, they must recognize the need for some fodder to tame the few wrestless "fight from within" types. What is of utmost importantance is what is being put into practice, this has taken root and is growing into a plant.

Another example more related to the RCC is the teaching of "Limbo". I have read several times that it was never "official" RCC teaching, but in practice I doubt a single Latin living into the 60's didn't believe this. Of course now it is being swept under the rug - so much for "officialdom".

Is ROCOR ecumenist? Well, they are not ecumenist (syncretist) with the heretics of the "wherever they shall be" type, but I believe they are now openly and with "bared head" syncretist with their own brand of heretics, namely defunct "orthodox" clerics. So my answer is yes.

[Seraphim Reeves]

George,

I'd like to start by making clear where I'm coming from, as I think that is already getting lost.

I'm not defending Papism in so far as it genuinely errs. Nor do I pretend to defend any partisans of error, or have any desire to do such.

However, what I do object to, are poor arguments against such errors - poor because they fail to understand what they're actually coming up against, or poor because they're going after the wrong aspects of an errant teaching.

The danger of the first type of bad argument, is that it ends up doing battle with a straw man. If a fairly well read Papist see's this, he's just simply going to scoff, dismiss the Orthodox as know-nothings, and if anything not only not have a change of mind and heart, but if anything be even more firmly entrenched in his error (and his negative view of the Orthodox Church.) How on earth that is supposed to serve the Holy Gospel and the propagation of the Holy Church I simply do not know - yet some people stubbornly persist in such a disasterous course. Indeed, even if you convince an ignorant Papist with such an argument, you're liable to danger - for what happens if later on, they find out (for all of the goods of Orthodoxy) that they perhaps abandoned Papism in part due to misunderstanding? You're setting them up for a potential crisis and defection in the future, in which you will have contributed to them ending up in a state worse than the first.

The problem with the second form of bad argument (attacking the wrong aspects of their error) is just as bad, if not worse - since it typically results in implicit (or even direct) attacks on ideas which are in fact native to Orthodox Christianity itself! This effectively is "throw the baby out with the bathwater" style apologetics; and it seems to be endemic to much of the misguided zeal of those who envision themselves as purgers of Orthodoxy of "western accretions."

The only way a soul could be "corrected" after death, is if there is metanoia after death. If God chastises someone in order to correct them, the individual must be correctable. Once the soul has left the body, repentance, and therefore it's ability to be corrected, cease.

So what in your understanding is the value of praying for the dead, offering divine services (including the Holy Oblation), giving alms or doing other pious works on their behalf?

Why more lenient? Orthodoxy teaches that Christ freely blots out our sin, and that He died for us while we were still sinners. RCism teaches that we must make restitution, satisfaction and reparation for sin- an impossibility in Orthodoxy.

Restitution in so far as it is possible, yes. Do you not believe there is any part of sin which can be fixed by our labours, particularly if done in the grace and Name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I CERATAINLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT THUS! If Christ paid a judicial satisfaction, to whom was it paid? Sin enslaves us to the devil, not to God. Did Christ ransom us by paying the devil? Certainly not! So to whom was it paid? Did God demand a divine-human blood sacrifice before He would forgive sins? Only the most deluded pagans would believe this nonsense.

Hmmm. Trust me, I'll be getting back to this point in another post.

My fundamental point, has not been to "defend" the Latin teaching of purgatory (which in it's basics, does predate the schism) as it was eventually codified by the RCC - my point is to demonstrate that it does not amount to anything resembling the Origenist error.

But there is no value in human merit, whether we are united to Christ or not. We cannot earn or somehow become more deserving of Grace- we can only recieve or reject it; either we work with it or oppose it.

In a sense, I agree with this. However, the point was simply to convey what the RCC does teach, hence why it speaks about "purgatory" as it does; and to show the problems of equating this with Origenism.

Is not a belief in a purifying fire after death a form of apokatastasi?

I fail to see how it is. Read what you're saying - "apokatastasi" - the restoration of all things to Christ, in a state of blessedness, eventually. That's something you either are teaching, or you're not.

We all know that some Church Fathers held some erroneous beliefs. What does this quote prove? Infallability is apparently only a priviledge of the roman pope, not of mere Church Fathers.

Well, St.Gregory the Dialogist certainly held this view, and it appears to have been a common theological opinion of the Orthodox west prior to the schism. What I would disagree with, is that the form "purgatory" took later on in all of the details, and the system of indulgences attached to it later on, were also held by Orthodox Latins, St.Gregory included.

For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment.of the world to come." (Bl.Augustine, City of God, 21:13)

Of course, it's actually not even fair to say this was a uniquely western or "Latin" idea...

9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.

1. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him of-fence, and then those who belong to them. (St.Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:9,10)

While no mention of "fire" is found here, certainly the idea of souls not fully prepared to meet God at their deaths (who suffer somehow in the afterlife because of this) being helped by prayers and sacrifices is obviously present. Where St.Gregory got more explicit, was simply in understanding the "fire" experienced by the damned (the way they suffer) to be in some wise also applied to those who died but were not in total loss.

There are other similar passages I could cite from the Fathers, but I would need time to give them satisfactory attribution (with references that could be easily looked up online or in a decent patristics collection.) This is also beside the copious witness to this belief in popular piety amongst the early Christians, including many of the common non-canonical acts of martyrdom from the early period.

Given the Church's practice of praying for the dead, and the ardent belief that this is somehow of benefit to them (even to the point of removing them from a condition of suffering to a condition of peace), I fail to see how St.Gregory's view can simply be dismissed as that of an "erring Father." It seems this is too often the catch phrase (oh, he's an errant Father) for anything that does not fit into the extremely narrow understanding of what is "Orthodox" that some espouse. Frankly, why should I believe you, or such "experts" when the Holy Fathers, and the obvious import of Church praxis, says otherwise - that indeed, there can be a condition of suffering for those who depart in Christ but not perfected, and that somehow our prayers and sacrifices on their behalf can be accepted by God as part of the remedy for their situation?

Well, I don't see any other bishop claiming that they are able to speak as an infallable, divine oracle at will. I'd say that's pretty different.

That IS different, but it is separate from the argument that the Pope simply cannot be the "visible, earthly head" of the Church, because this is somehow incompatable with the Headship of Christ of the Church. That argument is, if left there, useless, because it can be equally used against the existance of a Priesthood at all. Thus, one could indulge it, but only by cutting their own feet from under themselves.

As for "divine oracle at will", once again, that's not RC teaching. An "oracle" is a prophet - the RCC doesn't teach that prophecy is a gift of the Papacy. "Infallibility" involves the idea that when push comes to shove, if the Pope is teaching with his full authority on a matter of faith or morals, providence will not allow him to espouse falsehood. That doesn't guarantee he will say all that needs to be said, or that he will always save the day with a snappy answer as if somehow inspired - simply that being the rock bottom court of appeal for such things, God will not allow him to err in this wise. Now, there are some real problems with THAT teaching; but it is markedly different than the idea that the Pope is a prophet.

If this is the case, why doesn't the pope release all the souls from purgatory?

Good question! However, one could argue that plenary indulgences (complete indulgences) already exist, which if attached to a prayer or pious work, do free their subject from the complete temporal punishment due to sins, whether alive or dead. The limitation here then, would be the ability to pray for all of those reposed individuals supposedly in purgatory. Another problem, is that the RCC itself recognizes that it is part of God's sovereignty, whatever the value of an indulgence, to accept it as He see's fit - thus, just because a plenary indulgence is gained on behalf of this departed family member, that doesn't necessarily mean God will accept it so as to immediately release that person from purgatory. In other words, even if the Pope could conconct such an "indulgence", it might not "take" anyway, and that is something envisioned by their own teaching.

Christ said "what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." I don't remember Him saying anything about "what you loose in purgatory".

Good point!

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

Seraphim

This hypothetical Latin fellow might be just as put-off from Orthodoxy by seeing Orthodox Christians implying (or outright stating) that Orthodox Councils and documents normally considered authoritative are foolish and wrong.

[joasia]

Being acquainted more than most with the teachings of the Roman Catholics, I have to be frank and say that the above is not an accurate treatment of this RC belief. Comparisons with Origenistic belief in particular are telling, since the teaching of Purgatory has nothing to do with a denial of eternal damnation.

No. The idea of purgatory has the Christian believing that they can still work out their sins in order to get into God's Kingdom. But, all knowledgable Orthodox Christians know that after death, that option is null and void, because only their guardian angel can defend them and the soul is place in a position of anticipation of their personal judgement. They do not live in the fullness of the judgement but are in the anticipation of heaven or hell. All the Holy Fathers have taught that. Maybe you should read their writings to understand what I mean.

While one can make the argument (as does Bl.Justin of Serbia) that the RC teaching of the Pope being the visible head of the "Church on Earth" in essence (by result, more than theory) pushes Christ's Headship of the Church out of the picture, the actual teaching of the Latins is not this - they do not teach that the Pope and "not Christ" is the "head of the Church", but rather that the Pope is the head only of the "Church Militant" (Church on Earth), and in such capacity is only such in a manner subservient to Christ. The most bold statement of this belief being that Christ and the Pope form "one head" of the Church Militant, with the Pope acquiring his authority as "vicar" from Christ, hence "Vicar of Christ."

That's a load of crock. The Pope had proclaimed himself as "Infallible", which means without sin. That is blasphemy, because only Jesus Christ was a man without sin. He had proclaimed himself as the representative of God for the people, whereas, the hierachy of Orthodox proclaim themselves to be the representatives of the people to God. There is a big difference. The RC has always tried to establish themselves as the authority over all Christians, despite the fact that they caused the Great Schism in 1054 A.D. due to the infiltration of the Germanic Franks in the See of Rome. Do not try to humble the RC as misunderstood, Seraphim, because I will be there to expose the truth.

While that belief is problematic for obvious reasons, it is not the same as what this anathema is condemning - simply put, the anathema is condemning something which strictly speaking no one was adhering to

No one was adhering to??? The people were dishing out the money for this SAFE passage to heaven and the See of Rome was taking in all the money. They had no right to proclaim that they could GUARANTEE free passage to heaven!!! We ALL have to go through our personal 40 day judgement. No indulgent note will guarantee safe passage. Are you insane to even promote this stupidity? Have you no idea of the judgement we all face when we die??

The same is the case with the indulgences themselves. In RC soteriology sin has two consequences - eternal, and temporal. It is impossible, even if a sin has been nominally forgiven, for a man to pay the "eternal" consequences of serious sin - that is covered by the work of Christ. However, the "temporal" consequences, since they are finite, can be satisfied by a man. Hence, in the RC system, one of the primary values of penance is to satisfy this debt, along with rectifying in regard to others any harm a man has done to them (for example, if he stole from someone, he must do all within his power to pay back that person.) However if someone was unable to satisfy these "temporal punishments", but has already received forgiveness of serious (mortal) sins, while he may die in the grace of God, justice demands that he satisfy this before he enters Paradise, the reasoning being that nothing at all unworthy or defiled can enter Heaven.

You are making this up as you go along. I can tell. You're really full of it. With the RC, it's all a matter of rules and regulations. You confess, you get 5 hail marys and 6 our fathers. How stupid is that? There's no spirituality involved. It's all about you did this... you get that punishment. If it was that way then the thief on the Cross would not have been forgiven by Christ and not been the first to enter into God's Kingdom. Think about that for awhile. It isn't so simple as cause and debt. How about the 40 martyrs of Sabaste. At the last minute, one of the men out in the cold ran in to the warm cabin, but one of the Roman soldiers saw the martyrs crowns descending and he believed in Christ. He stripped and ran out to die with the others. It's not all black and white. Saying a thousand Our Fathers is not going to wipe out your sins. The prayer of the priest during confession, with his stole on your head, brings down the grace of God to forgive your sins. It's a GIFT, directly from God. The priest or bishop is the vessel: they don't have the power. The power works through them to us. Therefore, they cannot be compared to somebody who is in God's position to guide us. They are struggling like us, but God is there to guide them.

Indulgences rest on the belief that the Pope, as the "Vicar of Christ" has access to a "treasury of merits" which he can be attached to certain pious works, enriching their value so as to be able to better (or even totally) satisfy this temporal debt due to sin. These indulgences can also be applied, by the living, to prayers and works they offer on behalf of the dead.

Vicar of Christ??? Treasure of merits? As the point I made with the thief on the Cross...what PIOUS works did he perform in order to receive the "treasure of merits" of entering the Kingdom of God??? But, Christ did say to that that he would be with Him in Paradise. The pope is not in a position to forgive others as if he has the power of Christ...he is a tool that Christ uses to forgive others. Again, the whole RC brainwashing of the pope being celestial when he is really human and a beggar amongst saints to God. Many times, the pope is a bigger sinner than the average village peasant. Don't forget the Great Schism of 1054 A.D. and the Crusades of the pope who went and slaughter other fellow Christians because they FELT like it.

However, an important detail in all of this (and it is something the anathema is missing, and it would seem was misunderstood by most of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation) is that indulgences are only of value for those who are in the "state of grace", this is to say they have already received forgiveness for their sins. In other words, the indulgence received for alms given to some work of the Latin Church (such as the rebuilding of St.Peter's Basillica), would be of no value for someone who has not gone to confession and received absolution, or someone who in reality died in the "state of mortal sin." IOW, there is no Latin teaching of "buying salvation" or forgiveness of sins.

Indulgences are BOGUS, so your whole paragraph has no meaning to anything worthy of a Christian point of view. Indulgences are an innovation of the corruption of the western church in the 11th century. It's not even a real Christian belief. It's like trying to convince people that cartoons are real. It is purely, laughable, amongst serious theologians.

This is not to say that there is not obviously alot wrong with the actual teaching on indulgences; there is plenty, and it should be obvious just from what I've described. Yet the anathema offered here, is ultimatly against a particular teaching which at least the Papacy itself and it's theologians, were not adherants to.

They did ADHERE to it...so what's your point?

i) While essentially being the same to the point that for all practical purposes they are the same, strictly speaking the Gregorian and "revised Julian Calendar" of the new-calendarists are not the exact same animal. With sufficient time, they will actually need different types of correction and will fall out of sync from one another. Given this, can it be said with specifity that the "new calendar" introduced by the EP is the Gregorian calendar condemned by the Sigillion of 1583?

As a "lawyer" , you talk B.S. and make no sense to someone who knows the difference. But, perhaps you want to confuse the less-informed.

ii) The anathema can be interpreted as being aimed at those who want to adopt the Gregorin Paschalion and the fixed Gregorian calendar. Yet, even if one accepts that the "new calendar" and the Gregorian calendar are generally the same, do not the New Calendarists still use the "Old Calendar" Paschalion for determining the date of Pascha? Thus, is it accurate to say they fall under the anathema as stated, even if they did adopt the Gregorian calendar for determining fixed feasts (which as I addressed in the previous point, seems to be debatable.)

Let me clarify your confused brain: the Gregorian calendar is different from the Julian calendar by 13 days. What new Gregorian calendar you are referring to, is obviously not the original issue. The Gregorian calendar is shifted to the Julian calendar for the period of Great Lent, in which, they tend to miss the fast for St. Peter and Paul since they switch back to the Gregorian calendar after Pentecost. Hence, another arguement to support staying with the old calendar, but how many people have any common sense to understand this today, I don't know.

Concluding Remarks (for now): The first two anathemas mentioned, imho, are loaded weapons not aimed at a precise target. While one can argue that they are "basically" addressing real falsehood, they are very poorly articulated and have an implicit misappreciation of what they are criticizing. On this basis, is it not fair to conclude that it is not the most carefully worded of ecclessiastical documents? And in such situations, what are we to do? What is the value of a work which one knows based on firsthand knowledge contains significant innaccuracies?
As for the anathema of the Gregorian calendar, while it's quite obvious (from the EP's 1920 encyclical on Ecumenism) what the EP was up to in instituting their "revised Julian calendar", and this is problematic for it's own reasons, can it still be said that what they did actually fell under the Sigillion of 1583?
Also, just as I have to question the accuracy of the wording of the two other anathemas I brought up, I have questions about the wording of the calendar anathema. For example "atheist astronomers of the Pope"? Is that a matter of fact - ATHEIST astronomers? I'm tempted to say that the document is going a little over the top here, and indulging immoderate language to the point of saying something which I doubt was the case.

Again, your B.S. astounds me. You obviously, know nothing of the true theological debate of the RC and Orthodox. On the other hand, I do. But, there's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who is completely ignorant to the diffferences between the papist church and the true church of Orthodoxy.