SubdeaconNektarios wrote: ↑Sun 21 January 2024 3:55 pm
@Andrew MacDonald
Yes, I had to do an addition to The Calendar Question for the appendix. That appendix was added because the Sigillion that was later discovered to be forged, is being used by some conservative modernist online, to try and throw the whole book out based on that one particular topic that is not even a fraction of the argument in the book. The 3rd appendix really puts an end to their argument.
As far as the other I.M. Andreyev book, there is another publisher that has that up in Canada. If they wanted me to do it I would I'm sure it could use some work and a new cover.
In Christ,
Subdeacon Nektarios
The Main issue with (“the Calendar Innovation of the Latins”: Myth or Reality? A Study by Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi) is these claims are made without showing proof of the “forgery” itself. It seems to be a carefully crafted argument they used to take validity away from the Sigillion of 1583 because if true it contradicts the ecclesiology they held at that time. The same thing was done when a document was composed as a “rebuttal” to the 1983 anathema against ecumenism. Considering their track record at this time I think it would be a mistake to just take his word for it. Also, this idea below clearly isn’t true from the document.
- The putative Sigillion of 1583 essentially has nothing to offer to the sacred cause of resistance against the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism. Indeed, even if it were genuine, it would not take effect automatically and in- stantaneously, expelling the innovators from the Church forthwith, since an anathema, in order to take effect, requires a special Synodal judgment on the basis of Orthodox Church order.20
Canons have to be applied. Anathemas do not. They are conflating canons with anathemas. When someone espouses a heretical belief that has been anathematized, then they lose the grace of the Holy Spirit. If they proclaim that belief publicly and it becomes known, then all those that stay with them are anathematized.
(I’d also like to point out that we have multiple Saints that make reference to The Sigillion of 1583. I’ll give two examples.)
“Saint Nektarios of Aegina a very beloved Saint, one who is loved by those on the New calendar but was in no way pleased by that innovation said “We should not change the calendar because all our feasts of our church have been established on it especially the eternal pascha” The Two men he was speaking to replied “But if the church accepts the reform which is happening.. what are we to do”… “You remain as you are” he said “you will not follow the reformers because the Gregorian has been condemned by two Pan Orthodox councils under patriarch Jeremias in 1582 and 1583 two councils and anathemas in 1843 it is impossible for Orthodox to accept the change, I do not accept or follow anyone even if I stay alone” The two men replied “but if we do not have a priest or priests what will we do and if we do not have a Church and have everyone with the New calendar there how do we deal with it”. “Why are you worried” he said. “Your homes will become Churches” “If you read in the history of our Church in times of rebellion many houses have become places of common prayer. All this and much more was said.” - From a Periodical from the Monastery of Esphigmenou on the Holy Mountain
In 1926, Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava and Pereyaslavl, wrote the following in his work, "Short canonical judgements on chronology":
Question. Have the pastors of the Orthodox Church made a judgement concerning the calendar?
Answer. They have, many times - with regard to the introduction of the new Roman calendar - both in private assemblies and in councils. A proof of this is the following. First of all, the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II, who lived at the same time as the Roman calendar reform, immediately, in 1582, together with his Synod condemned the new Roman system of chronology as being not in agreement with the Tradition of the Church. In the next year (1583), with the participation of Patriarchs Sylvester of Alexandria and Sophronius VI of Jerusalem, he convened a Church Council. This Council recognised the Gregorian calendar to be not in agreement with the canons of the Universal Church and with the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the method of calculating the day of Holy Pascha.
Through the labours of this Council there appeared: a Conciliar tome, which denounced the wrongness and unacceptability for the Orthodox Church of the Roman calendar, and a canonical conciliar Decree - the Sigillion of November 20, 1583. In this Sigillion all three of the above-mentioned Patriarchs with their Synods called on the Orthodox firmly and unbendingly, even to the shedding of their blood, to hold the Orthodox Menaion and Julian Paschalion, threatening the transgressors of this with anathema, cutting them off from the Church of Christ and the gathering of the faithful.
In the course of the following three centuries: the 17th, 18th and 19th, a whole series of Ecumenical Patriarchs decisively expressed themselves against the Gregorian calendar and, evaluating it in the spirit of the conciliar decree of Patriarch Jeremiah II, counselled the Orthodox to avoid it.
Question. Is the introduction of the new calendar important or of little importance?
Answer. Very important, especially in connection with the Paschalion and it is an extreme disorder and ecclesiastical schism, which draws people away from communion and unity with the whole Church of Christ, deprives them of the grace of the Holy Spirit, shakes the dogma of the unity of the Church and, like Arius, tears the seamless robe of Christ, that is, everywhere divides the Orthodox, depriving them of oneness of mind; breaks the bond with Ecclesiastical Holy Tradition, and makes them fall under conciliar condemnation for despising Tradition.
Question. How must the Orthodox relate to the new calendarist schismatics, according to the canons?
Answer. They must have no communion in prayer with them, even before their conciliar condemnation.
The GOC encyclical of 1935, as well as the encyclical of 1950, and even the Auxentius encyclical of 1974, all declare the New Calendarist innovators to be schismatic and deprived of the grace of sacraments according to the first canon of St. Basil the Great.
"On account of this, we counsel all who follow the Orthodox festal calendar to have no spiritual communion with the schismatic Church and its schismatic ministers, from whom the grace of the All-holy Spirit has departed, since they have set at nought the resolutions of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the Gregorian festal calendar. The fact that the Schismatic Church does not have grace and the Holy Spirit is confirmed by Saint Basil the Great, who says: "Even though the schismatics have not erred in doctrines, yet because Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church, according to the divine Apostle, and from Him are all the members quickened and receive spiritual increase, the [schismatics] have been torn from the consonance of the members of the Body and no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit abiding with them. And how, indeed, can they impart to others that which they have not?"
June 21, 1935
+Germanos of Demetrias
+Chrysostomos of Florina
+Germanos of the Cyclades Islands
I would say that before throwing out The Sigillion of 1583 it should be examined by an expert on the topic that’s trustworthy and in accord with the mind of Christ.
