I was just re-reading over the Sigillion of 1583 (which first condemns the Gregorian Calendar) and several things became apparent up close examination.
1) The fifth anathema in the document is about the RC dogma of purgatory. It reads as follows...
V) Whosoever says that when they die the souls of the Christians who repented in this life but did not do their penance go to Purgatory - which is a Greek myth - where fire and torment purify them, and they think that there is no eternal torment, as did Origen, and give cause by this to sin freely, let such a one have the anathema.
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.
2) The sixth anathema is even more problematic, in that it misunderstands the RC teaching on "indulgences". The anathema reads...
VI) Whosoever says that the Pope is head of the Church and not Christ, and that he has authority to admit into Paradise with his letters, and can forgive as many sins as will be committed by one who with money received an indulgence from him, let such a one have the anathema.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3) The seventh anathema, and which is very relevent to our recent discussions, is against the Gregorian calendar. Here is the anathema...
VII) 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, but wants to follow the newly-invented Paschalion [method of fixing the date of Pascha] and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and opposing them, wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church which we have inherited from our Fathers, let any such have the anathema and let him be outside of the Church and the Assembly of the Faithful.
Ostensibly this is a fearful and very direct condemnation of the "new calendar" of the EP and those with him, but the contrarian "lawyer" in me notices a few things which need to be addressed in all fairness...
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?
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.)
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.
Seraphim
Regarding whether the views condemned were the "official" beliefs of the Latin Church, I think we can cite some things going on today that might help convey what I mean by that. The Antiochians, for instance, "officially" (so far as I know) say that the non-chalcedonians must accept the 7 ecumenical councils before there can be full communion. Yet, they have what can only be called communion with them nonetheless. Their official position and their words and actions in reality do not match. So, traditionalists tend to disregard the official rhetoric, and focus in on what is actually going on. There are similar examples in other jurisdictions, though I don't want to go on and on about others with what I perceive to be problems or contradictions (though I can give a couple more examples via PM if the above one doesn't suffice). The official position and what actually happens can be different. I wonder how many cases of heresy were like that in history, where people gave an "official" position which was really not an altogether complete or exhaustive articulation of their beliefs (e.g., think of Pelagius, who deceived those in Palestine)