I've been reading through the archives of the Orthodox-ROCOR yahoo list, and have read quite a bit that is interesting. I also read the following, which is relevant to my last post:
...Me: You cannot possibly argue that it was worse,
because Dioscoros anathematized the Orthodox
confession of two natures, and he was under no
compulsion to do any of the things he did, but on the
contrary, used the power of the state to compel others
to do evil.No one has ever argued that Metropolitan Sergius acted
without extreme pressure from the Soviets.If you read the writings of the various bishops of the
ROCA, they have always acknowledged that he was in a
very difficult position, and have refrained from
judging him personally for his actions.See for example:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/resistance/roca_history.htm
"This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in
which he freely wrote that which within himself he
acknowledged as true. Imprisonment, threats with
regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian
Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet
regime broke him: within a few months after his
letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad,
which was as it were his testament before his loss of
inner freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a
Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime
as a genuinely lawful Russian regime which was
concerned for the people's good, a regime "whose joys
are our joys, and whose sorrows are our sorrows"
(Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time,
in accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet
regime, Metropolitan Sergius demanded of the clergy
abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet
regime.This document was in complete contradiction with his
view expressed nine months before this, that the
Moscow Patriarchate could not direct the
ecclesiastical life of emigrants. If for those in
Russia who were undergoing terrible sufferings there
might be conditions that would mitigate their moral
capitulation to the cruel regime -- just as the church
canons at the time of the [ancient] persecutions
mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ
after terrible sufferings -- nonetheless, for those
who were in freedom and comparative safety there were
no mitigating circumstances or justification or even
meaning at all in such a signature. It can hardly be
that Metropolitan Sergius himself believed that anyone
abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did this
clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet
regime and thus remove responsibility from himself."-St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco
FAB: “So, it sounds like Dioscoros might be compared
to Metropolitan Sergius, and St Flavian, at whose
exile and torture he winked, would be analogous to the
thousands sent to death camps while Sergius winked. So
on the one case we have one Saint's martyrdom winked
at, and on the other we have thousands and thousands
of New Martyrdoms winked at. The Robber Synod, I
suppose, would be analogous to the Synod which elected
Metropolitan Sergius.”Me: Again, Met. Sergius did not anathematize the
Orthodox Faith, and whatever he did, he did under
compulsion. He did not encourage the state to kill
anyone, whereas there is very good reason to believe
that Dioscoros did. He certainly encouraged the state
to force the bishops at the Robber Synod to toe the
line. So there simply is no way you can argue that
Metropolitan Sergius was worse than Dioscoros...Dioscoros was finally condemned because he
refused to repent of his errors, not just because he
was guilty of them before hand. The Church is not in
the business of trying to condemn people and cast them
out of the Church. Metropolitan Sergius can no longer
stand before a canonical trial of bishops. We can
condemn certain of his actions, but God will judge him
personally. We should pray for him, and be careful
not to judge, lest we be judged.The same amount of mercy you show Patriarch Alexei II
and Met. Sergius is the same amount of mercy you can
expect God to show you. - Source
Thoughts, anyone?
