Ukrainian Orthodoxy		Orthodoxie ukrainienne

The Cultural Impact on Faith and Church History: Some Bohemian Reflections

Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org

It has ever been the case that the Orthodox Church has been Western history’s “best kept secret.” One reason for this is the unwillingness of Western Roman Catholicism and Protestantism to admit Orthodoxy to a place in the religious struggles of Europe that are, more than often than not, reduced simply to a battle of ideas – ahead of actual wars – between Rome and Protestantism alone. One could make the argument, however, that not only is that not true – it doesn’t even apply to Western denominations. The liturgical traditions of the Hussite Utraquists of Bohemia serve as an important case in point.

There was and still is an assumption in Western historic circles that if one wasn’t Protestant in Europe, then one was Roman Catholic and vice-versa. This is why there were even Roman Catholic scholars who were ready to see Orthodoxy as a kind of “Protestantism” since it did not accept papal supremacy. Protestants, on the other hand, sometimes refuse to admit that Orthodoxy is not a form of Roman Catholicism “without the pope.”

The same holds true of other Western church movements, such as that of the Hussites. It is almost an “historical given” that John Hus (+1415) and his movement was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation. By moving away from Rome, the Western historical perspective would have it, Hus was moving toward Luther and full-blown Protestantism.

But the studies into the Hussite liturgical traditions of the Rev. Professor David Holeton of Charles University in Prague and others demonstrate how totally unique this particular and independent tradition was in relation to Catholicism and Protestantism. Moreover, they show how close the Hussite Utraquists were to . . Orthodoxy!

We know that Bohemia and its surrounding western Slavic milieu was given birth into the Christian faith by Sts Cyril and Methodius and their five disciples. St Rostislav the sovereign of Bohemia invited these missionaries to preach the Orthodox faith there and to baptize his people into the Catholic church. And although these lands later came under the Latin influence of Rome, the people, and especially their intelligentsia, would continue to look longingly toward the East as their ancient spiritual home.

No where was this more true than among the religious leaders of the Czechs in the 14th century who were responding to the spiritual crisis then gripping their people. Jan Milic, one of the fiery preachers of Bohemia, openly criticized the immorality of the clergy at that time. He was brought to Rome where he was arrested and imprisoned – but when the pope himself heard his case, he found no heresy in him and had him released.

But what began as a movement for moral reform in the church and a deepening of Christian faith and devotion among the people turned into a much wider realization of the Czechs for their own church and traditions with the coming of Jan Hus on the scene.

Rector of the University of Prague, Hus echoed the voice of Jan Milic and others for real moral reform. He wrote spiritual treatises (such as “The Daughter” or “Dcerka”) to bring a deeper Christian spirituality closer to the people. He won great admiration for standing up to the German domination of Czech life, especially at the university. His preaching in his Bethlehem Chapel was as well attended as it raised the ire of the ecclesial and political authorities of his day.

The Hussite movement did not, in fact, begin with Hus himself. What he did was to provide a wider analysis as to the causes for lapsed Christian practice and morality among the clergy and people of Bohemia – and for him all those causes were so many roads that truly did lead to Rome itself.

Most telling about his perspective were his suggestions as to how best to reform the spiritual life of his people. With the coming of Latin as the liturgical language in the Czech lands, the people could not understand what they were hearing in Church, and the truth of the Gospels was therefore well beyond their reach.

They could likewise not meaningfully participate in the liturgical life of the church. In addition to a greater focus on the intelligent reception of the Word of God in scripture, Hus advocated a similar focus on the reception of Holy Communion, especially a Holy Communion where the laity as well as the clergy could partake of both the Bread and the Wine (“sub utraque”) that best represented the reality of the Risen Lord.

As for clerical immorality, Hus asserted that celibacy cannot be the rule for everyone – a return to the married priesthood was called for in addition to a more rigorous ascetical life and a distancing of the clergy from the this-worldly cares involving money and secular power.

Hus’ plan of reform would ultimately lead him to conflict with Rome and his being burned at the stake on July 6, 1415 as he sang the Apostles’ Creed and the Jesus Prayer.

For over two hundred years after his death, Hus’ followers in Bohemia grouped into the “Utraquist Church.” Separated from Rome, this church was in no wise a precursor to Lutheranism – in fact, its practices contradicted the most basic tenets of Lutheran theology.

We know that the Utraquists continued with their Catholic traditions but without the pope. They venerated icons (one observer noted that their “images” in their churches were “pictures painted on wood”), celebrated the Divine Liturgy in accordance with their Utraquist Rite (and in the Czech language) where Communion in both Kinds would be offered to the laity, had married clergy and honoured the Virgin Mary and the Saints.

A most interesting aspect of Utraquist liturgical life, that has been the focus of the academic work of the Rev. Professor Holeton especially, was its veneration of “Saint Jan Hus” with formal services and propers for the Mass of the day and the Office (Horologion). Icons of Hus, of Jerome of Prague, Michal Polak, the Martyrs of Kutna Hora and other Hussite martyrs were painted with their memory liturgically celebrated as any other Saint in the calendar would be.

At Kutna Hora there were silver mines down which Utraquist priests and laity were thrown, dead or alive. According to witnesses, the dismembered body of one of these priests, Jan Chudek, was found and his relics gave off an “aromatic odour.” In short, the full range of saint-veneration practices existed among the Utraquists. Travellers to Bohemia at that time commented how the word “Utraquist” and “Czech” were interchangeable – the religious identity implied the cultural identity and vice-versa.

What was particularly disturbing to Rome about all this was the veneration paid to Hus and the Utraquist Martyrs (in fact, the Jesuits would later try to replace the memory of Hus in Bohemia with that of St John Nepomuk – an enterprise that was finally withdrawn by Rome in 1963 with Nepomuk was removed from the universal Roman calendar).

Of similar annoyance was the Utraquist insistence on Communion in both Kinds. It was heretical, Rome asserted, insofar as the Utraquists seemed to affirm that Communion was necessary to salvation, like Baptism, and that they said that Christ was not fully present in the Communion in one Kind (sub una).

And the Utraquists did indeed give Communion to children at the time of their Baptism – another annoyance for Rome and “proof positive” that the Utraquists were heretical.

But to what extent was Rome’s estimation of the Utraquists as heretical based on a faulty ecclesial model? Rather than see the Utraquists as having “turned away” from Rome, what would happen if we saw them as having “turned toward” their earlier Cyrillo-Methodian traditions and Orthodoxy itself?

If we did that, then the Utraquist “innovations” all fall into place as they reflect perfectly Orthodox liturgical practice, including the giving of Holy Communion to infants. The Utraquist Church’s glorification of its own saints and martyrs would also be a return to the Apostolic tradition that exists within Orthodox Christianity.

The Church’s success in bringing the Word of God to the Czech people through a literary, understandable language (which not only gave impetus to the development of Czech literature, but also to Czech national aspirations) is certainly in fulfillment of the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

The Utraquist/Hussite symbol of the Chalice therefore speaks to this turn eastward toward Constantinople and Orthodoxy in general. In fact, Hussite leaders are on record as having visited Constantinople more than once to ask for bishops and priests for their community (which petition was granted in the person of Bishop Constantine Anglikos for Bohemia). And Jerome of Prague, Hus’ associate who was burned at the stake a year after Hus became an Orthodox Christian in Latvia and the Czech Orthodox Church now has his Orthodox baptismal certificate – a fact that has made Jerome an actual candidate for Orthodox glorification as a saint!

The Czech Orthodox Church truly is the fullest possible realization of what the Utraquist tradition was striving to realize. It is no surprise that the Czech Orthodox commemorate Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague and the other Hussite leaders and martyrs on July 6th with special commemorative prayers that are in its Sbornik.

And I have in my possession an article written by a Czech Orthodox Christian who is ardent in his wish that Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague be formally glorified as saints for the Czech Orthodox Church in recognition of the essential Orthodoxy and movement towards the Faith of their ancestors present in the Utraquist tradition.

Ultimately, proper evangelization might be said to be a function of “giving the people what they want – and need” by way of a fusion of faith and culture.

[ Home ] [ Articles ] [ Prayer ] [ Saints ] [ Theophilus ] [ Q & A ] [Discussion Forum] [About Us] [ ]

Ukrainian Orthodoxy - Українське Православ'я