www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Polish National Catholic Church ? / Organization of E Rite churches

Dear Alex,

Well, you raise enough issues for several weeks of discussion. Just a few remarks for the present:

Whatever does Metropolitan Sheptyckyj have to do with Hus? I am a tremendous admirer of Sheptickyj, though not of Hus. And we need to be extremely careful of applying broad ethnic stereotypes when talking about the Metropolitan. After all, he was raised in a polonized family that spoke Polish & identified with Polish culture. For many years he was villified by Ukrainians as a "Wallenrod," a secret agent of the Poles. He should be an example for all of us on how to subordinate ethnicity to spirituality. He's not a good example of illustrating ethnicity by religion.

By the way, it is not "my" Jagielloninan University in Krakow. As I said before, I was born in the U.S. (Krakow does happen to be my favorite city in the world, however).

I read quite a lot of favorable things about Hus that have been written by the Catholic clergy of Poland. But of course, Hus is also partly responsible for the desecration of the Black Madonna at Czestochowa, when the Hussites attacked & temporarily captured the Jasna Gora monastery. Just like many other armies of their day, the Hussite armies were terrorists & inflicted great damage, even in their own country. Especially in parts of Moravia that remained Catholic.

I have to disagree with you - Orthodoxy for the Czechs has been nothing more than a fad since the 19th century. It was for Czech intellectuals of the 19th century what the Hare Krishnas are to some of Europe's young folk today. And therein lies the great tragedy of Hus - he so poisoned the hearts of the Czechs of Bohemia towards religion that today the great majority are atheists/agnostics. Most of those who took up Orthodoxy in the 19th century did it for political & cultural reasons.

That is obvious with the great Czech political & cultural leaders of recent time. Masaryk was both a Hussite & an agnostic/atheist. Same for Havel. The sad state of affairs among the Czechs led them to VOTE IN THE COMMUNISTS BY A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION OF BOHEMIA (though not Moravia or Slovakia). I'm aware of no other communist regime elected by a majority population.

You are correct about Jan of Nepomuk being promoted as a "Catholic Hus." Over the centuries that just turned the Czechs of Bohemia even more against religion.

Should Hus have remained silent? Well, he shouldn't have paid so much attention to the ideas of Wycliff. Yes, Hus was orthodox in certain respects - e.g. respect for the Mother of God. But he also picked up some of Wycliff's errors. As someone who knows the Czechs quite well (I've published some things on the Czech & other Slav stereoypes), I can tell you that Hus's fault - his infatuation with the fashionable & especially with the fashionable things from the West - is still seen among the Czechs. The Czechs have lost so many Slavic traditions because they've always been so infatuated with news styles & fads. They have no respect for tradition.

I've never met a Czech who could say that he developed a deeper religious faith because of Hus. I have met many Czechs who mention Hus when expressing all kinds of resentments & intolerance. Again, when we look at all the repercussions caused by Hus over the centuries, we have to ask is Hus and his teachings came from God.

In the interest of healing the wounds of history & reconciling some of the Czechs to Christianity, perhaps the Church should rehabilitate Hus. The less one thinks today about the tragedies of Hussitism, the better.

Stojgniev

Stojgniev

Dear Stoyjniev,

We'll agree to disagree on certain points, but I think you really are mixing up "beans with kapusta" when you discuss Hus and Hussitism.

There were several versions of Hussitism, including the radical (Protestant, iconoclast) Taborite brand that had nothing to do with the Catholic vision of Hus at all.

If it did, the Church would not be interested in rehabilitating him and the matter would be closed.

Hus was not an iconoclast and the fact that certain members who called themselves after him were does NOT make Hus guilty of iconoclasm.

So, forgive me, but you do not make the necessary distinction between the two and that is unfortunate.

As for Met. Andrew, I merely bring him up to show how someone can be villified etc. He was indeed met with suspicion by the Ukrainians at first.

He struggled to find his Ukrainian roots (which were intermingled with Polish ones) just as I have both Ukrainian and Polish roots (and am proud of both).

There is no reason, however, for him to continue to suffer villification today, as I'm sure you will agree.

The secularization of the Czechs is not simply due to the years of war with the Vatican.

They are the most Westerly Slavs and picked up on many Western secular and agnostic currents of thought over the years, hook, line and sinker.

I have corresponded with Czech Orthodox clergy and hierarchs and categorically disagree with your estimation of Czech Orthodoxy.

It is true that Hus and Jerome of Prague were exposed to the idea of Wycliffe. But Roman Catholic historians today show that Hus gave Wycliffe's ideas a "Catholic inflection" and avoided the Protestantism inherent in Wycliffe.

Jerome of Prague's studies under Wycliffe certainly did not prevent him from being open to Orthodoxy and from embracing Orthodoxy in Latvia which he did before returning to certain death at the stake in Prague (again, his Orthodox baptismal certificate has been discovered).

Hus opposed German hegemony over the Slavs which is why the Pan-Slavic movement of the 19th century looked upon him favourably (including our Taras Shevchenko). He also opposed the extraction of Czech resources by the Vatican to fund the more secular pursuits of the Church of Rome at that time.

At no time did Hus take up arms against anyone. It was the violent act of his execution at Constance that provoked later military actions by those who probably would have done so regardless.

Although the Taborite Hussites chose as their symbol the chalice to signify Communion in both Kinds, in fact, Hus NEVER made this an absolute issue.

No one is imposing the "cult of Hus" on anyone here. Hus' rehabilitation will not necessarily mean a declaration of cult by the RC Church.

He was a person whose influence extended widely, even on the Vatican II Council, as Matthew Spinka has said, where a number of his propositions were accepted by the Council documents.

But that is another story.

Alex

Alex,

Yes, we'll have to agree then on our disagreement about Hus. Actually, I'm much more interested in Metropolitan Sheptyckyj


Alex wrote:
There is no reason, however, for him to continue to suffer villification today, as I'm sure you will agree.



Sorry, but I missed something. Who is villifying Sheptyckyj?

You are right about Hus & the Germans. As rector of Prague university, he fought for & gained rights for the Czech students, then many German students promptly left Prague. Hus was always consious of the political ramifications of his teaching & preaching.

Little wonder that the Slavs influenced by Romanticism & emerging Slav nationalism, e.g. Shevchenko, praised Hus. But one hardly expects exact historical detail or analysis from Romanticists & 19th century national awakeners. Just because Shevchenko praised him, it doesn't mean that I should too.

If someone finds spiritual inspiration in Hus, good for them, so be it! I myself will focus on other historical figures that inspire me in some positive manner (like Metropolitan Sheptyckyj).

Stojgniev

Dear Stoyjniev,

If you like Met. Andrew, then let's forget about Hus, shall we?

Not that I'm tooting my own horn, but what do you think about my Akathist to him on the Prayer Thread?

You mean you haven't read it yet?

Niech Bedzie Pochwalony Jezus Christus!

Alex

Alex tells us that Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytysky) "participated in the consecration of the current Pope as bishop . . ."

Please refresh my memory - when was Karol Woytyla (now Pope John Paul II) born? And when was he consecrated to the episcopate? And did Metropolitan Andrew not fall asleep in the Lord in 1944?

Or perhaps Alex believes that Metropolitan Andrew was spiritually present - that seems likely, but I cannot think of any way to verify it until (please God) the day arrives when I will be able to ask the Metropolitan.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

There is no need to speak about me as if I'm not here.

Perhaps I expressed myself wrongly, but the Pope himself discussed his relationship to Met. Andrei when he was in Ukraine. Perhaps it had to do with episcopal lines or all that other stuff that the clerical-minded busy themselves with.

Sorry if I misrepresented the Pope's words - I've really no desire to know more about it.

You would better spend your time reading an Akathist to Met. Andrei . . .

You . . . you . . . great Unknown, you!

A holy Great Fast to you.

Alex

Yes, it has to do with episcopal lineage.

Archbishop Andreas Alexander Szeptyckyj (b. 1865 - d. 1944) is within the apostolic succession episcopal lineage of Pope John Paul II, because he was the principal co-consecrator of Bl. Jozef Bilczewski, who was the principal consecrator of Boleslaw Twardowski, who was the principal consecrator of Eugeniusz Baziak, who was the principal consecrator of Karol Jozef Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II).

Here is the Episcopal lineage of the Pope beginning with Bl. Jozef Bilczewski who was consecrated by Andreas Alexander Szeptyckyj as one of the principal co-consecrators:

Archbishop Bl. Jozef Bilczewski (b. 1860 - d. 1923)
Consecrated bishop on 20 January 1901 by:
Jan Maurycy Pawel Cardinal Puzyna de Kosielsko (principal consecrator)
Archbishop Andreas Alexander Szeptyckyj (principal co-consecrator)
Bishop St. Jozef Sebastian Pelczar (principal co-consecrator)

Archbishop Boleslaw Twardowski (b. 1864 - d. 1944)
Consecrated bishop on 12 January 1919 by:
Archbishop Bl. Jozef Bilczewski (principal consecrator)
Bishop Leo Walega (principal co-consecrator)
Bishop Karol Josef Fischer (principal co-consecrator)

Archbishop Eugeniusz Baziak (b. 1890 - d. 1962)
Consecrated bishop on 5 November 1933 by:
Archbishop Boleslaw Twardowski (principal consecrator)
Bishop Francis Lisowski (principal co-consecrator)
Bishop Edward Komar (principal co-consecrator)

Pope John Paul II (Karol Jozef Wojtyla) (b. 1920 - )
Consecrated bishop on 28 September 1958 by:
Archbishop Eugeniusz Baziak (principal consecrator)
Boleslaw Cardinal Kominek (principal co-consecrator)
Bishop Franciszek Jop (principal co-consecrator)

Dear Apotheoun,

Please accept my spiritual bow!

Alex

Dear Alex,
Khrystos Voskresne! Now, now - dry your tears (or weep for my sins, if you would be so kind). Surely the realization that even the Unknown admire and appreciate you comes as some consolation.

Incognitus