Articles about St Gorazd Translation into English

Translations from Czech of articles about St. Gorazd (Bishop Matěj Pavlík, 1879–1942), New Martyr and renewer of Orthodoxy in the Czech lands.

Primary source collection: Pastýř a martyr (Shepherd and Martyr) (Olomouc, 1992–1995), hosted at orthodoxia.cz/gorazd. Additional related articles from the same site and the Eparchial Calendar 2023 are included at the end.

Each article includes a Czech original link to the source page. Website navigation and unrelated page material have been omitted from the translations.

Note: The PDF gorazd-zitije-w.pdf covers the same vita as “The Life and Work…” and was not duplicated. The liturgical service text in gorazd-sluzba.pdf is not an article and was not translated.

Contents⌗

From Shepherd and Martyr (Pastýř a martyr)⌗

From Shepherd and Martyr⌗

Gorazd in the Choir of God’s Saints⌗

Czech original: Svatý biskup Gorazd ve sboru Božích světců

Saint Bishop Gorazd in the Choir of God’s Saints

“Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:45)—with so emphatic a saying did the Lord in the Old Testament call the chosen people to a godly life. And this call of God has not grown old even today, for the Lord by the holy Gospel calls the human race to holiness, piety, and Christian perfection (Matt. 5:48). We, however, humbly acknowledge that absolute holiness belongs to the supreme divine Being alone. For He is the source of holiness, of all blessing, and in Him there is no sin. God’s chosen people were bound to strive in every way for a life in holiness, to fulfil God’s will, and to be continually in a close relationship with God. The rest of humankind was in spiritual darkness, being darkened by idolatry, but God revealed to them also the possibility of salvation through the expected Messiah. What had been foretold was gradually disclosed in God’s promises and in the predictions of the prophets. And thus not a single human being is forgotten before God. “God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). To attain salvation means to attain holiness already on earth, in a measure appointed, in a life that consists in preparation for eternity.

The messianic ministry of Jesus Christ consists in calling and teaching people how to attain salvation. The foundation of salvation consists in Orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity. But we regard faith as a gift of God, which a person obtains by an attentive life. By an unbridled life, however, a person withdraws from faith and enters upon an uncertain path leading toward the loss of eternal salvation. When the Saviour healed, He often asked: “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” (Matt. 9:28).

Those who in prayer ask God and turn to Him with their whole heart receive what they ask. Our petitions to God for temporal needs are not sinful, but they are imperfect. If, however, a person’s soul crosses the boundary of individual prayer for earthly gifts, it cries out for eschatological eternal salvation. That is a manifestation of our striving for Christian perfection. Jesus Christ from the very beginning shows Himself as Saviour and as God-man heals Peter sinking in the sea. What is surely most important for a human being is the manifestation of sincere faith in the Saviour. Even to His own disciples the Lord at times reproaches little faith (Matt. 8:26).

Holy Scripture teaches us, in connection with holiness, that not only a person alone can attain holiness; that by prayer even objects are sanctified—especially those destined for divine worship, and also the vestments worn by the servants of the altar. Holiness is a certain reality connected with the Mystery of God, accomplished by divine worship and by pious deeds. And the person who celebrates the holy Mysteries (Sacraments) must be of a life in a higher measure moral and blameless. Holiness also includes the notion of a sacred action that surpasses the person who performs the sacred ministry. For in the Mystery accomplished upon the holy table there acts the invisible power of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies what is set forth, which is therefore filled with a kind of supernatural power and contains the revelation of God Himself. But the holiness of the object (“the elements”) relates to the source of holiness—the Lord God, from whom all holiness proceeds, pouring forth upon the elements set forth for the celebration of the Mystery and upon the person who celebrates the Mystery, if he has conquered sin in himself.

Let us try to develop the thought of God’s holiness still further. We too, who by hierarchical cheirotonia are destined to perform the sacred action of the holy Mysteries, yet in deep humility confess that the Mysteries are inaccessible to our understanding. We all rely, of course, upon the proclamation of Holy Scripture, in which God Himself has revealed Himself to people, in which He has disclosed His glory. In the Old Testament we are convinced of the Sinai Theophany (the Revelation of God—Ex. 19:3–20), where a supernatural mysterious power was manifested, ready likewise to bless those who with faith and love hope in Him (God). According to Isaiah’s prophecy God manifests Himself in the temple as the infinitely exalted “King and Creator of the universe.” But God’s face (His essence) a human being cannot see (Isa. 6:1–6). In these words, however, we do not see God’s holiness as removed from humankind; on the contrary, it is brought near to a person so far as that person can comprehend it for the strengthening of faith in the supreme divine Being. In reliance upon faith and upon God’s all-seeing, a person feels that he continually stands before the face of God (cf. Gen. 5:24).

God manifests His holiness in the temple even upon all the objects used at the time of religious rites. There is no need to enumerate them; they are known to us from the holy book—the Bible (as regards the Old Testament temple). The objects in the temple which God appointed for the people for the strengthening of their piety likewise acquire—though not in one and the same measure—a holiness corresponding to the relation that joins them with God at the time of divine worship (Job 15:15). For even the high priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year after thorough purification (Lev. 16:1–16). From this we infer how greatly the Old Testament temple was endowed with holiness.

In the Bible the chosen people themselves are also called “holy,” for they were set apart from the other pagan nations. Out of His unfathomable love God dwells with the people (Ex. 33:11–17). God reveals Himself to the people in the cloud, through the ark of the covenant, the temple, and other things. “The Holy One in your midst” (Hos. 11:9)—the prophet reminds the people of the real presence of God, which mediates to the people the holiness and dignity given them from God’s mercy. At the same time He will fittingly expect from the people’s side a moral life (Lev. 22:31). The prophets fulfilling God’s will continually repeated that the offering of sacrifice for sin has little effect by the mere form of the rite performed; that what is required is “righteousness, obedience to God, and love for Him” (cf. Deut. 6:4–9). The sanctification of a person, judged according to the manner of his pious life, can increase. Pious people are such as showed the fear of God and strove not to transgress the commandments—that law which, according to the prophet psalmist, is “better … than thousands of gold and silver” (Ps. 119:72). From the remnant of the chosen people those will be saved whose names God writes in the book of life (cf. Isa. 4:3)—that is, those who believed in Christ as the promised Messiah, foretold by the prophets and prefigured by types. The Church also honours the Old Testament righteous: Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, and the other patriarchs and prophets.

In the New Testament Jesus Christ clearly disclosed to us the mystery of the Holy Trinity by a vivid image at the moment of His baptism in the River Jordan. By the working of the Holy Spirit, holiness from the day of holy Pentecost has been markedly extended to those who believed and entered Christ’s Church. In the gracious Kingdom of God on earth (Matt. 6:10) Christians truly share in the life of the Risen Christ through faith and baptism, which gives them “an anointing from the Holy One” (1 John 2:20). Thus they are sanctified through the presence of the Holy Spirit in them (Luke 3:16), and therefore the Apostle Peter uttered, through the Holy Spirit working in him, the mysterious words: “You are a chosen race … a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). He understands New Testament Christians as a holy people—set apart from the sinful world that has not received the truths of the New Testament and has not united itself with Christ.

Angels also are called holy (Matt. 25:31), as are prophets and apostles (Eph. 3:5). In the broader sense of the word the expressions holy and sanctified are used in relation to known individuals who dedicated their lives fully to God—such as, for example, the venerable hermits—or those who chose another path of pious life and likewise attained a high degree of spirituality: teachers of the Church, martyrs. The holy Apostle Paul even points to mixed marriages and draws from them the conclusion that “the unbelieving husband is sanctified through the wife,” and vice versa (1 Cor. 7:14). He also calls the children of Christians who live piously holy (ibid.). If even food is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer (1 Tim. 4:5), then how much more a person who by a pious life has attained Christian perfection. Some of such the Lord already during their earthly life glorified with the gift of working wonders, of prophecy, or then of the incorruption of relics. Christians are bound steadfastly to fulfil service to God in accordance with the promise they gave at baptism or that was given for them in childhood, and to offer themselves together with Christ as “a … holy sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1).

The holiness of Christians, arising from their calling (Rom. 1:7), requires of them that they avoid sin in every way. They are to conduct themselves “not in fleshly wisdom, but in the grace of God” (2 Cor. 1:12). Holiness of such a kind is the foundation of every Christian soul, which is to strive to be conformed to His death in order to come to His resurrection (cf. Phil. 3:10). For various reasons, however, not all take into themselves the exalted image of the Christian life (cf. Matt. 19:11)—that is, they do not keep themselves from every defilement of body and soul, nor guard themselves against everything that separates a person from communion with God.

The prophet David very God-fearingly glorifies the holy friends of God; he says (in the Septuagint rendering): “How precious are your friends to me, O God, … I would count them, but they are more than the sand” (Ps. 139:17–18). The Word of God urges us to the glorification of God’s saints, of the day of their repose, when they were born unto eternal life. The glorification of the saints is accomplished not for their sake—for they have no need of it—but rather for our benefit, that after their example we may train ourselves in a virtuous life.

We know that virtue has its origin in God. The Lord leads a person through the virtues to a high degree of holiness, lives in his heart, and by grace (blahodať) helps him to a pious life (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16). Those who in earthly life glorified the Lord will be glorified by Him. The saints have no need to await that glory of which the Saviour spoke: “The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43). So great a glory will be theirs with God for their blameless life. And if the Lord has made them worthy of so great a heavenly glory, why should we human beings not honour them? Of honour toward God’s saints the Apostle Paul also teaches: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels” (Heb. 12:22). The Apostle Paul speaks of the heavenly Church, which has taken into itself God’s saints. And on earth the Church continues Christ’s redemptive work by bringing believers to Christ through the Mystery of baptism, and thereby making them worthy of entrance into the heavenly Church.

“There are many stars of various size and brightness in the heaven, but far more are those which we do not see. There are many of God’s saints who shine in the glory of the heavenly Father, but doubtless there are still more such whose names in the book of life God alone knows. God’s saints are like lighthouses set out in the stormy sea of life, upon which our little spiritual boat also sails… By their example they teach us the work of salvation and direct their spiritual gaze toward our heavenly Father. The saints are crowned with heavenly glory and abide in communion with God,” says St. Dimitry of Rostov.

We have occupied ourselves somewhat more broadly with the teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning holiness. In our opinion this was necessary. The Orthodox Church throughout the whole yearly cycle also daily glorifies one or several of God’s saints, saints of the whole Church or saints honoured locally. They glorified God by their virtuous life, and the Lord crowned them with heavenly glory. If we wished to count them, it would appear that they are more than the sand (Ps. 139:18), as the psalmist says… If we picture the radiant choir of the saints, then before us there appears an earthly paradise, adorned with flowers of various virtues. In the choir of the saints we can see the golden flower of the wisdom of the teachers of the Church, or of the strenuous abstinence of the venerable ones, who became famous by the heroism of humility, meekness, patience, mercy, and other virtues with which they were adorned. And not only men—women also adorned their earthly life with continual glorification of God with purified heart and soul. From this we draw the certainty that we are surrounded by many examples of those who, though fragile and weak like ourselves, overcame personal shortcomings by faith, love, and complete devotion to God. We believe that God has not only glorified them in heaven, but that their names do not die even on earth. And we, their descendants, keep their memory and after God bring our prayers also to them, for the memory of the righteous is celebrated with hymns of praise and the blessing of the Lord rests upon his head (cf. Prov. 10:7).

We are immensely encouraged by the fact that the number of canonized Czech saints has been increased by the newly glorified holy Vladyka Gorazd. It is generally known that our archpastor served God with body and soul, restored and strengthened the Czech Orthodox Church, and led into it a pious people who sought the original truth; as a good shepherd he cared for their salvation. His blameless life, which we recall, brought and still brings us all no small spiritual benefit.

To honour St. Vladyka Gorazd and our other saints, not much is needed. From the Lives of the Saints we know that almost all the saints were poor in earthly goods but rich in spirit. And the same example is given us also by our holy hierarch. He exchanged the inheritance from his parents for spiritual wealth. He himself lived entirely modestly. The means he received he distributed for the building of churches, supplemented from them the modest means of the clergy, and even those of socially weak believers. In the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus the Saviour showed us that to the one who in earthly life bore poverty without murmuring there was given the wealth of eternal glory, but that the one who lived in luxury was brought by wealth into extreme poverty.

As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Vladyka’s martyrdom—the day of his passage to the triumphant Church in the heavens—we experience this feast as a spiritual celebration of us all. His life was filled with continual striving for the good of the Church, a striving that brought him much suffering from opponents, as the Lord Himself teaches us in the words of St. Luke: “In your patience possess your souls” (Luke 21:19). The saints too, whom after God we invoke for help, hear us. And thus our life is to be a continual endeavour to imitate the life of the saints. We must be watchful; by prayer and strength of will wage the struggle against sin. For how, without such spiritual concentration, could we dare to ask the help of our new martyr and of the other saints? If we remain stubbornly without repentance in sins, our calling will not be heard. For the Lord is not only merciful but also the just Judge of human deeds. And if we glorify the saints, we thereby glorify God, for “wondrous art Thou, O God, in Thy saints” (cf. Ps. 68:36).

Holy Vladyka Gorazd served throughout his whole life in the Church to God and to the nation, and after his repose he became a member of the heavenly Church, in which he offers prayers to God for us—his flock. And we, at the fiftieth anniversary of his martyrdom, converse with him in prayers, for with God the souls of the righteous are always living (cf. Mark 12:27).

Holy Vladyka! We know that love and complete devotion to God brought you to the holy altar, as was clearly shown in your service to Christ’s Church. When by God’s permission foreigners attacked the native land, you saw and heard the lament of your people aroused by the German Hitlerite occupation, and all the more did love for the native nation blaze in you. You strove with body and soul to protect your nation. That, however, could not remain a secret, and so your patriotism led you to sacrifice. You could not “fail to drink the bitter cup of suffering and death.” Yet you accepted death out of love for your nation in the name of your Orthodox Church quietly, without murmuring, like a lamb. By martyrdom you cleansed yourself of every least speck of human sin; for we are all sinful in comparison with the absolute holiness of God. Not long—only sixty-two years—did you live on earth, but in that short time you gave yourself wholly without remainder to God and the Church: soul, body, heart. For all this you became in your nation a great defender of Orthodoxy and thereby also a defender of God’s truth, which particular religious currents sought to suppress. Yet you zealously came forward by word and in print in the interest of the purity of Orthodoxy. And we rightly regard you as a confessor of Orthodoxy, which is spiritual food for us and for future generations—a confession in which we abide and attain salvation.

And so all of us—clergy, the episcopal synod, and the faithful, youth and adults—weave for the fiftieth anniversary of the holy Vladyka’s martyrdom a wreath of praises from the living flowers of faith and piety, for he “became all things to all,” that he might by all means win as many as possible for Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22). Holy Vladyka, accept from us the modest gift with which we fervently desire to honour you—the publication of this collection; and in your God-pleasing prayers remember us in the Kingdom of God. Ask the Lord to give peace to the world, to protect Christ’s Church from disputes, errors, and schism; may the Lord lead the whole world to the knowledge of God, to love and peace, to which you called your flock. For only thus can peace bring security, universal happiness, joy, and well-being upon the earth.

You, holy Vladyka, will forever remain our beloved archpastor and heavenly intercessor. To you we entrust our flock, for you gathered it into Christ’s Church “in the pains of childbirth” (cf. Gal. 4:19). Guide the Church and our Christian life. Tend your flock as our fellow-shepherd after Christ. Such is our unwearying love and gratitude for your spiritual and patriotic heroism, which we send forth to meet you. Intercede by your prayers with God for your Church in our lands and for Orthodoxy throughout the whole world… And when we depart from here, entreat God to receive us into the heavenly dwellings, that together with you and all the saints we may glorify the Most Holy Trinity, before Whom you now stand and Whom you glorify with the angels. Behold, this is a modest little flower which we lay before your icon, because those who shed your innocent blood left us no grave in which your body might rest, tormented by continual labour and finally also by heavy suffering. Help us by your holy prayers, that we may live our earthly life in a God-pleasing way in Christ Jesus our Lord, and that at the Last Judgment we may stand at His right hand with all the saints.

— + Metropolitan Dorotheus; 1992

From the collection Pastor and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995) (Internet publication, September 2013)

Restorer of True Cyrillo-Methodian Christianity⌗

Czech original: Obnovitel pravého cyrilometodějství

To follow in the history of our nation and its culture the attitudes of significant personalities and communities toward the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition is both interesting and instructive. The pointer on the scales of sympathy or antipathy toward this fundamental phenomenon of our spiritual culture and learning swung with varying intensity according to the cultural or political constellation of the age, according to ecclesiastical sympathies, and also according to the pressure of foreign influences and interests. Already the historian František Palacký indicated the age-old national dilemma arising from our nation’s relation to its western neighbours. Others, more deeply and with spiritual foresight, pointed to the spiritual and ecclesiastical crossroads of Europe that intersects precisely among us. Already from the time of Great Moravia, our first state, in which book culture was born—brought by the heralds of Christ’s Church—this key moment and decisive place in our history was made plain. One thing, however, is certain: the turn toward the Cyrillo-Methodian idea was a good for our nations and for all the Slavs. Without Cyrillo-Methodian culture we Slavs, under the pressure of the West already from the time of expansion under Charlemagne, would scarcely have preserved our national identity and language.

Who today would even know the names of Saints Cyril and Methodius—recently even proclaimed, together with Saint Benedict (who likewise received his monastic orientation from the East), as “patrons of Europe”—had not Slavic rulers in southern Europe taken up their disciples and their inheritance and helped this spiritual seed to grow among the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Macedonians—Orthodox nations!—from whom then, in a powerful missionary current, the Slavic Church and its culture spread especially to the Slavs of Rus’? Among the Croats, who inclined toward the Latin Church, and among the Poles, who suffered the same fate, the memory of the holy brothers was almost forgotten.

In an unheard-of and brutal manner the Cyrillo-Methodian work was destroyed in Great Moravia after the death of Saint Methodius. Scarcely had the saint died—before whose spiritual authority even the soldierly and ruthless Prince Svatopluk trembled, though he listened to the treacherous Bishop Wiching and his Frankish friends and failed to understand the benefits that flowed for the Slavic state from a unifying national culture—when the Slavic disciples of Saints Cyril and Methodius, some two hundred in number, were sold into slavery! How much did Svatopluk and Wiching earn on each educated slave?! The teachers Angelár and Gorazd—the designated successor of Saint Methodius—Bishop Clement, and the monks Naum and Sava were imprisoned, tortured, and finally, in cruel frost sometime in the year 886, driven from Moravia, and found refuge in Bulgaria. For the Bulgarians their work became the foundation of national culture.

Fortunately for our nation, the Slavic Cyrillo-Methodian Church could continue to live and develop its cultural and educational programme in Bohemia, which soon broke away from Moravia and embarked on a process of unification around the Přemyslid dynasty. While Moravia, deprived of a spiritual integrating idea and strength, sank under the onslaught of the Magyars and Germans and lost its independence for a long time, Bohemia, thanks to the Cyrillo-Methodian legacy, could grow and consolidate as a state. This came about through the orientation of Saint Ludmila, of Saint Wenceslas, and finally also of Wenceslas’s brother Boleslav, who did penance for the sin of fratricide and understood both the ecclesiastical and the peace-political line of his brother. It came about thanks to the radiation of Cyrillo-Methodian culture from the monastery of Saint Procopius at Sázava, until the Slavic monks were finally driven from it at the close of the eleventh century, the Slavic books burned, and everything that recalled the activity of the Eastern, Orthodox Church destroyed. Historical evidence of the Slavic ecclesiastical affiliation of Saint Ludmila, Saint Wenceslas, and Saint Procopius was preserved again in the Orthodox Russian milieu, while among us everything was swallowed up by the victorious Latin of the Western Church.

In Hungary, into whose framework Slovakia was incorporated for long centuries after the fall of the Great Moravian state, the hope of survival for an Orthodox ecclesiastical community in the form of Cyrillo-Methodian culture was at first greater than in Moravia itself. For the ruling Árpád dynasty cultivated livelier contacts both with Byzantium and with Kievan Rus’, and many Eastern Orthodox monasteries were active there. Thanks to this, Orthodoxy was maintained in southern Hungary, in neighbouring Transylvania, in Subcarpathia, and in eastern Slovakia. For the Ruthenian people, pushed into poor mountain regions and socially wretched, Orthodoxy became the shield of their existence, their only school, their only culture. Thanks to this the Ruthenians survived as a nation and did not lose even their ecclesiastical orientation, their Orthodox spirit. That spirit could not be suppressed even by the imposed ecclesiastical union with Rome.

In the Czech lands the Cyrillo-Methodian past lived in the memory of the learned, who could read nostalgic reminiscences of it from Latin books in which the legends of Saints Wenceslas, Ludmila, and Procopius were preserved. Charles IV could still find, in the time of his margraviate in Moravia, traces of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, and when he became ruler in Prague he founded, together with the university, also the Slavic monastery of Emmaus—albeit with the Western rite and Croatian monks, but with a Cyrillo-Methodian intention. Here Czechs could once again hear the word of God in a language close to them.

The Hussites sought precisely in Orthodoxy support for their striving to restore the original ordinances of the Church, including the longed-for divine service in an intelligible language. Hus’s friend Master Jerome of Prague searched—when he had been alerted by Wycliffe’s writings to the Greek ecclesiastical tradition—for the apostolic faith in the East, in Byzantium and in Jerusalem, and eventually drew inspiration from the church life of the Orthodox Russians and brought to Bohemia knowledge of the chalice, that is, communion “under both kinds,” a practice living in Orthodoxy but already uprooted in the West as regards the administration of the Holy Eucharist, as well as knowledge that the Orthodox have divine service in the native tongue. This the Hussites introduced in their own milieu and exalted the chalice as the emblem of their spiritual striving. Their learned men and followers—including the scholar of world renown Jan Amos Comenius, the last bishop of the Unity of the Brethren—emphasized the spiritual connection between Hussitism and Cyrillo-Methodianism.

In the period after the Battle of White Mountain, when the Latin Church again prevailed in the Czech nation, the Cyrillo-Methodian idea unexpectedly became a motivation for the national and ecclesiastical endeavours of Catholic priests concerned for the good of the nation. But in an age when their Church uncompromisingly clung to Latin as the only possible liturgical language, their appeals to the Cyrillo-Methodian idea rang with little conviction.

Only when, after the First World War, a mighty spiritual ferment manifested itself in our nation did the very powerful longing for a national Church and for intelligible divine service in the national language receive a clearer expression. The Cyrillo-Methodian idea, together with emphasis on the Hussite tradition, became a living expression of the aspirations of those who became active agents in the religious movement of the then Czechoslovak Church. At its beginning, moreover, the name “Cyrillo-Methodian Church” was considered, which unfortunately was not realized. Intelligibility of the liturgical language, the conciliar character of church organization, early Christian church ordinances and customs, above all the principle of voluntariness in the question of priestly marriage or celibacy, the sovereignty of church life without interference from abroad—these were what the searching eyes of Czech church workers from the ranks of the Catholic Church looked for as they surveyed various Christian traditions. All these things were ordinary and unproblematic in the Orthodox Church. It was therefore no accident that the judicious representatives of the Czech religious movement after the liberation in 1918 turned their attention to the Orthodox Church and recognized its usefulness for their aims. There were, of course, also such views that the movement ought rather, in the spirit of the liberalism of the time, to orient itself toward more radical Protestant currents and toward scientific thinking with a very critical assessment of religion as such. To some it even seemed that the Czech post-revolutionary religious movement was called to bring the world a new religious Reformation.

At first standing aside from both currents was the Moravian Matěj Pavlík. He joined the movement of the Czechoslovak Church only when he saw that the Czech and Moravian people were entering it with enthusiasm and with the expectation of genuine spiritual renewal. A native of Moravian Horňácko, from the region where Moravia and Slovakia meet, from a family whose roots lay in the Czech Brethren and Hussite tradition, born on 26 May 1879, he understood as a Catholic priest and active worker in the Czech minority movement, and as a good knower of Czech spiritual history, that the only truly hopeful outcome of these reform endeavours must not miss the Cyrillo-Methodian idea if it was to fulfil the task it had set itself. We do not wish to deny that Matěj Pavlík, soon elected for his extraordinary organizational abilities to the head of the Czechoslovak religious movement in Moravia and Silesia, looked about also at other great Christian formations in Europe on which the movement might lean, when he realized that without such support it would narrow into a kind of modern national superficial current and lose spiritual depth. He studied the Anglican Church and visited also German Evangelical Christians (in Berlin he witnessed their interest in traditional liturgical life), but when he came to know Orthodoxy and gradually deepened his knowledge of it, he understood that there was no need to seek anything else or better. The Orthodox tradition fulfilled all the expectations that the Czechoslovak Church set for itself. There was room in it also for a conception of free religious development—as regards outward elements—while on the other hand the fundamental certainty of faith would be secured.

Priest Matěj Pavlík knew well that what was expected of the Orthodox Church was that it should first of all consecrate bishops for the Czechoslovak Church, so that the latter might refute the reproach that it stood outside the apostolic succession of the episcopate. The majority of the then priests of the Czechoslovak Church, because they had passed into it from the Roman Catholic Church, were aware of the importance precisely of this point—apostolic succession and thereby the certainty of the real celebration of the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) in the new Church. Many knew the historical lesson of the Utraquist—Hussite—Church, which never had bishops with proper consecration and therefore was compelled to beg, often in a humiliating manner, for the consecration of its candidates for the priesthood from Roman Catholic bishops.

In this sense too Orthodoxy was to be a rescue—as a Church faithfully preserving the traditional faith of the apostles and the Church Fathers, Orthodoxy was the true Cyrillo-Methodian Church! This realization was not entirely clear to everyone. For example, Dr. Karel Farský continually associated Cyrillo-Methodianism with the Roman Church; in that matter he never freed himself from the prejudices and distorted interpretation of Cyrillo-Methodianism that he had acquired in the Roman seminary. Probably the philosopher T. G. Masaryk thought similarly. The Roman Catholic Church claimed Cyrillo-Methodianism especially after 1882, when the papal encyclical Grande munus appeared, calling under the cloak of Cyrillo-Methodianism the Orthodox Slavs into ecclesiastical union with Rome. One may say that in his conception of religious history and in his outlook toward the future Priest Matěj Pavlík was relatively isolated. Only in Moravia did he win sympathy and support among the more far-sighted clergy. They had to face the accusation of conservatism and rigidity when they cast doubt on whether the Czech nation, saturated with the liberalism of the age, ought to give the world a new spiritual Reformation as a way out of the intellectual confusions of that time. They saw hope for the future rather in the deepening of liturgical life—in this Orthodoxy captivated them (!)—and in the renewal of early Christian spiritual earnestness.

Nevertheless the Central Council of the Czechoslovak Church quite sincerely accepted the decision to turn to the Serbian Orthodox Church and ask it to send a bishop who would help organize this new independent religious movement among us. Already in August 1920 Dr. Karel Farský, the foremost Prague figure of the new Church, welcomed in the Church of St. Nicholas on Old Town Square—which since the 1870s had been in the use of the Russian Church and had spread among Czechs knowledge of Orthodoxy, and which by the natural course of events became also a centre of the endeavours of the Czechoslovak Church—Bishop Dositej of Niš, delegated by the Serbian Holy Hierarchical Synod to Czechoslovakia, with enthusiastic words. The Serbian Church indeed answered affirmatively the request of the Czech representatives, who at that time could not orient themselves toward the Russian Church, which was experiencing the beginning of a hard period after the revolution of 1917 that issued in bloody persecution of the Church and of religion in general.

By Dr. Karel Farský and especially by the priest—writer of popular novels—Bohumil Zahradník-Brodský a memorandum was drawn up addressed to the Serbian Church, in which the Czechoslovak Church declared that it accepts the teaching of the Orthodox Church expressed in the seven Ecumenical Councils of still undivided Christendom in the first centuries of church history; that it further accepts the confession of faith composed by the Church Fathers at Nicaea in 325 and at Constantinople in 381—the well-known Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, used (though with an illegitimate addition) also by the churches of the West—and thereby a firm doctrinal foundation. From its perspective one must also judge the reservation made by the Czechoslovak Church in the sense that it asks of the Orthodox Church recognition of a new religious life with freedom of conscience. For the Orthodox Church this reservation, understood in the context of the accepted traditional Symbol of Faith and the teaching of the church councils, meant not a radical opposition to these traditional values, but room for their timely interpretation in the modern world. The Czechoslovak Church further also promised that it would submit to the ordinances and laws of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

This fundamental position was accepted by the first two sobors of the Czechoslovak Church in 1921, and soon thereafter candidates were elected in three dioceses who, by agreement with the Serbian Church, were to be consecrated bishops by its hierarchy. Against Dr. Karel Farský, however, voices arose from within the Czechoslovak Church itself concerning his doctrine, and the second candidate for consecration from the East Bohemian diocese, R. Pařík, renounced his candidacy. In the end there remained a single candidate against whom there were no objections either from his own ranks or from the side of the Serbian Orthodox Church—and this candidate was the candidate of Moravia and Silesia, Priest Matěj Pavlík. Therefore he was also immediately invited to Belgrade to be solemnly consecrated bishop for the Czechoslovak Church.

It must of course be said that the episcopal consecration at which Matěj Pavlík received the name Gorazd was Orthodox, that he was a bishop truly Orthodox, and that therefore the Serbian Church truly regarded the Czechoslovak Church as a Church that would be Orthodox. Perhaps in this matter we may appeal to an analogy from Cyrillo-Methodian history: the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople sent to Great Moravia its missionaries Cyril and Methodius in order to educate and form Moravian Christianity unto the fullness of the one, holy, catholic (that is, universal—Orthodoxy is true catholicity—universality) and apostolic Church and no other! So also the Serbian Church—and it cannot be otherwise. Every Church in these matters looks first to the unity of faith! If anyone thought that the Serbian Church ought to give the Czechoslovak Church an episcopate with apostolic succession simply as a “gift” without obligation on the part of those who received it, then he evidently understood episcopal consecration as something external, even magical, without the slightest comprehension of the real significance of this Mystery/Sacrament in the life of the Church.

Bishop Gorazd was from the beginning aware of what he was receiving in consecration and from whom he was receiving it. We do not claim that he then knew Orthodoxy perfectly in all its liturgical, ascetic, and legal nuances. He grew into Orthodoxy gradually and made it his own especially when, in the 1930s, he compiled his excellent Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants for popular use in the Czech Church. But in fundamental matters he was clear and warned against the frivolous opinion that it might somehow be possible to take upon oneself episcopal consecration without an inward obligation of faithfulness to Christ in His Church. In this he was undeviatingly honourable and genuine, and he bore it very heavily if anyone from his own ranks suspected him of some ecclesiastical careerism and lust for power.

Together with a delegation of representatives of the church communities of the Czechoslovak Church from Moravia and Silesia, who were willing to pay for and undertake the journey to Yugoslavia, and together with the representative of the Subcarpathian Ruthenian Orthodox movement that was developing in this post-revolutionary period analogously with the movement of the Czechoslovak Church in Subcarpathia and eastern Slovakia (a movement of the return of the faithful from the Greek Catholic Church to the paternal Orthodox Church)—this representative being Dr. Bogatyrcev—the delegation departed at the telegraphic invitation of the Holy Synod of Serbian bishops at the beginning of September 1921 for Yugoslavia.¹

Priest Pavlík successively received monasticism at the monastery of Krušedol, then the appropriate ranks, and finally on Sunday, 25 September 1921, he was solemnly consecrated with the episcopal name Gorazd in the cathedral church of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade. Besides the Serbian Patriarch Dimitrije and Metropolitan Varnava—later Serbian Patriarch—there was also present the Russian Metropolitan of the Russian (Abroad) Church, Anthony of Kiev (Khrapovitsky by his own name), a well-known theologian and sincere counsellor of Vladyka Gorazd, a well-wisher of the Czech and Slovak as well as of the Subcarpathian Ruthenian nation. The name which the new consecrand received convincingly symbolized the bond of the Czechoslovak—Orthodox—Church with Cyrillo-Methodianism. It was not chosen by chance as the monastic name of Matěj Pavlík. It indicates a direct ideological and programmatic continuity with the beginnings of our churchliness, with the so much emphasized apostolic and patristic roots of the Church, and with the liturgical expression of the Cyrillo-Methodian work. For Gorazd the First of that name was a Moravian, a free man, orthodox, that is Orthodox, as the fundamental historical source of the ninth century, the Žitije Mefodija—the Life of Methodius—calls him, a man whom Saint Methodius recommended as his successor on the archiepiscopal throne of Great Moravia. The first bishop—the Moravian Gorazd—was driven from the land by hatred and malice. In an anxious hour he took refuge as an exile among the Slavic brothers of the Balkans. Now after a thousand years they precisely repay their debt to this great son of Moravia, when their successors consecrate for her Gorazd the Second, a new continuer of the Cyrillo-Methodian work. That was the main idea of this significant event, which took place seventy years ago.

The new Gorazd did not disappoint the trust of his Church. He was a true restorer of the Cyrillo-Methodian spirit among us, not only by accepting the name of the Moravian disciple of Methodius. He restored Cyrillo-Methodian divine service—true, already in the Czech language; that was a developmental necessity—but he recommended the study of the Church Slavonic language and the cultivation of services in it especially on the great feasts and those dedicated to Saints Cyril and Methodius and their disciples. He laid great emphasis on the study of Holy Scripture, with which the Cyrillo-Methodians gifted our ancestors, on the cultivation of church singing grown from Cyrillo-Methodian roots, and he strongly encouraged the faithful to the building of churches. Like the holy Thessalonians he lived ascetically and devoted himself to scholarly and pastoral-educational work. He was missionarily open to Christians of other confessions by his witness to the Orthodox faith, but he despised no one who thought otherwise. He explained and defended the Orthodox faith emphatically. Nor did he betray the hopes placed in him from the national and patriotic side. He ended similarly to his great predecessor—a free man of this land—in the struggle for the freedom of the nation, for the freedom of the Church, as a martyr, a man whose lot was sacrifice for his brothers and sisters.

It will still be the task of historians to investigate all the circumstances that in the following months and years after this memorable Belgrade consecration led to the unhappy outcome in which the majority of the Czechoslovak Church—a religious movement that had begun so promisingly and linked itself to the best traditions of our nation—finally came into contradiction with its original orientation. The fundamental contradiction, however, already lay in the fact that its official doctrine, formulated by Dr. Farský, came into opposition with what we theologically call lex orandi—the law of prayer. Dr. Karel Farský took over into the liturgy which he compiled from various sources essential elements of the classical Orthodox Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, which the Czechoslovak Church retains to this day and evaluates as a positive.

Note. The Czechoslovak Church has in our time accepted the new official name “Czechoslovak Hussite.”

On the other hand, however, Dr. Karel Farský, especially in the Catechism compiled together with Brother Kalous and issued almost provocatively as an official doctrinal text against the opinion of many members of the Church, came forward with a teaching that was in sharp contradiction with the spirit of the apostolic Church expressed at the seven Ecumenical Councils and in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan confession of faith. The publication of this disputed catechism occurred at a time when Bishop Gorazd was sojourning in the United States of America on a missionary journey in 1923. After the return from Yugoslavia Dr. Farský indeed welcomed the newly consecrated Bishop Gorazd with enthusiastic words in the Church of St. Nicholas and declared that the Czechoslovak Church is an equal sister of the Serbian Church and inwardly no less Orthodox; yet when he did not obtain episcopal consecration from it, he inclined ever more distinctly toward the lay, liberal, and rationally oriented members of his Church, for whom it was not really so much a matter of deep religious life as rather of national and progressive ideals. There was not lacking even an orientation toward the so-called Free Thought. Thus the movement, developing so promisingly, gradually fell into intellectual chaos. Instead of playing the role of a new intellectual religious outlook in postwar Europe, it itself sank into barren religious rationalism, from which only with difficulty in subsequent decades did it seek a way back to biblical foundations.

Bishop Gorazd not only always emphasized faithfulness to the original direction of the Czechoslovak religious movement, but also truly preserved faithfulness to that direction. He accepted episcopal consecration with humility. It was for him not a source of glory but of suffering. He sought no advantages in it, nor could he. He remained with the church flock that became independent in 1924, when he and his adherents had to leave the Czechoslovak Church, though he regretted it, because he had brought great sacrifices for it and its work in the nation mattered to him greatly. It was a small group of the faithful and by no means abounding in material goods. The clergy who feared material uncertainty, though they inwardly sympathized with Bishop Gorazd, for the greater part did not resolve to follow him. From all sides—even from the side of the Orthodox themselves, or rather the “Old Orthodox” (later led by Archbishop Savvatij of the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction, consecrated thereafter)—he met with misunderstanding. In August 1924 this small group entered with Vladyka Gorazd as a clearly and unconditionally Orthodox Church upon a new stage of its church work, which during the twenty following years was blessed by the Lord of the Church.

Note:

I write of this in detail in the article “Seventy Years Ago,” Orthodox Calendar 1991, published by the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia at ENA Publishers, Prague 1990, pp. 53–60.

— Prot. Pavel Aleš / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

A Few Words in Memory of Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Několik slov k památce vladyky Gorazda

It would seem that there is already no need to speak and write about the first hierarch of restored Orthodoxy after the First World War in the Czechoslovak Republic, the unforgettable Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia, Vladyka Gorazd. Something was already written in the time of his activity and especially after the liberation of our homeland, after his martyr’s death, when he was no longer among us and when there remained after him a great gap and in a certain sense also a feeling of the irreplaceability of his personality.

The unforgettable Vladyka martyr was a worker of a kind of whom very few are born at all. I know of no case of anyone who so tenaciously, with love and devotion to the cause, with care, precision, and courage and hopeful faith, worked purposefully at the entrusted task and work. One must at least for a moment enter into the situation and environment in which Vladyka Gorazd lived and worked. One may say that he was a perfect model for his coworkers, clergy and laity, that he knew not only how to work excellently and judiciously, but also how to advise, help, and teach those whom he had around him. Many times even in an apparently hopeless situation he resolved a matter in such a way that many at first did not understand his decision, which only with time they understood, and sometimes only after a longer period was it evident that he had acted with foresight, entirely correctly and wisely.

He had his daily work precisely planned and always strove to keep to the schedule he had set. This followed from his strict daily order. He rose early and after prayer set to work. He ended the day only late at night with prayer and the reading of Holy Scripture.

He was everything for the young Orthodox Church in the Czech lands. He forgot nothing; in everything he was initiative; he thought of everything. Not, of course, because he wanted to do everything himself. On the contrary, he led us young ones around him to reflection and independent decision. He often gave us to read incoming official correspondence even of serious content and asked us to decide how to arrange the matter, or acquainted us with various problems—and of those there were not few—and required an expression of how we looked at the matter. A correct understanding of the situation or problem he received in a friendly way; in an incorrect assessment of the matter he patiently explained wherein we were mistaken, what in our finding and decision was injudicious.

Vladyka Gorazd was an organizer, teacher, writer, composer, singer, musician, preacher, orator, a ready debater—all of which flowed from his all-round education. He always knew what he wanted, what his task was, and correctly grasped the meaning of his mission and the essence of the activity. All these qualities of his personality sprang from a living and warm faith, from love for Orthodoxy, which after so many centuries he restored in the Czech lands, for they were the cradle of the original domestic Christianity, sanctified by the God-pleasing work and activity of the Slavic apostles Saints Cyril and Methodius. Of this Vladyka Gorazd was aware from the beginning, and therefore he worked with such zest, perseverance, and enthusiasm. He put into missionary church work his whole being. Perhaps many of his ideological opponents saw in his effort and organization of an independent Orthodox formation only a personal taste and at most a desire to prove something. Vladyka Gorazd, however, was firmly convinced by the history of our nation that our believing people had always, from Cyrillo-Methodian times, held in memory and always longed for their own, domestic, and distinctive Church of Christ with the full participation of all the people of God in church life. For in later historical events there manifested itself a longing for pure Christianity, of which the then prevailing Western power-Church was not the bearer—on the contrary, it deliberately and systematically eradicated Cyrillo-Methodianism. Vladyka Gorazd did not set to work on the restoration of Orthodoxy from ambition, for his personal glory, but from conviction and in faithfulness to the original principles and decisions of the new religious movement. For this standpoint he had to suffer much; therefore he was so outrageously vilified and belittled. Another in his place would long ago have abandoned the work. In the end even internal distasteful jurisdictional disputes and misunderstanding of the situation and possibilities on the part of the then large group of Old Orthodox brothers embittered his life and took from him the necessary energy for constructive and missionary activity. If we add to this the fundamental disfavour of the then ruling circles and the undisguised rejecting attitude of both the highest representatives of the state, we complete the picture of the extremely unfavourable conditions in which he had to work.

He was fully aware of the reach and the unfavourable turn of mind and opinion of the leading workers of the new religious movement when the then President said to the first delegation of the new Church: “I wonder at you, gentlemen, what you want with that Orthodoxy.” That was enough for a fundamental reversal to set in and for the leadership to curry favour with the head of state and act according to his wish. And strangely enough, the first President remained until his departure from the leadership of the state equally hostilely disposed toward Orthodoxy, for which his coworkers especially took abundant care. And Vladyka Gorazd nevertheless persevered in the work and remained faithful to the original principles of the religious movement.

He was a successful writer, and without his fundamental literary works our Church today would hardly get by. As far as there was anything to translate from the Church Slavonic language, he did so very readily with the ability to sense the correct meaning of the text and with still greater feeling to translate or adapt the relevant text in living Czech. For his principal work, the Collection of Orthodox Prayers and Chants, he made no little use of his great musical and singing gift. He was not only a composer but also an excellent singer who, in the regular explanation and instruction of the relevant liturgical service texts—as he later did in most church communities—could at once also sing for the faithful present at gatherings. Who could ever forget his fine and melodious voice, which especially stood out in the celebration of the sacred services. I shall never forget with what feeling, fervour, and ardour he sang at the hierarchical Divine Liturgy “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” And after this Trisagion hymn there always sounded the heartfelt words of the hierarchical prayer: “Look down from heaven, O God, and see, and visit this vine and establish it, for Thou didst plant it with Thy right hand.” Many times even many brothers and sisters, participants in these “his” liturgies, with tears in their eyes recall how fervently the Vladyka prayed precisely at that moment. For he was surely aware of the reality that by the grace of God the true Cyrillo-Methodian inheritance, Orthodox Cyrillo-Methodianism, had been restored in the land where these outstanding Slavic saints—apostles—worked. He surely realized how entirely different the history of our nations would have been had alien and hostile elements not then triumphed on the territory of our homeland. One cannot even adequately appreciate the significance of the Cyrillo-Methodian Orthodox mission among us at a time when Byzantium flourished and quite voluntarily and willingly offered cultural and religious fruits to all nations that showed a desire thus to enrich themselves. How significant and wise was the decision of Prince Rostislav to request heralds of Christianity who would speak to our people in an intelligible language and lead them; how condemnable and unheard-of is Svatopluk’s betrayal of this God-pleasing work.

When need arose, Vladyka Gorazd celebrated the services, especially the Divine Liturgy, alone. He sent his clergy—coworkers—wherever there was even the smallest group of Orthodox, that they might serve them also with the Divine Liturgy and the word of God. I myself saw Vladyka Gorazd serve thus while still a seminarian. But there are still many who remember it with extraordinary vividness and joyfully recall that it used to be for them a festal prayer experience—to see and be present at such a service of Vladyka Gorazd. Every movement of his, blessing, raising of the hands or signing with the cross was directly a devout act, regular, symmetrical, judicious, and all formed a unified harmony with artistic or popular singing. And how the Vladyka knew how to sing the ektenias or the responses always in the appropriate tone! Especially the Prague faithful who took part in the sacred services after the acquisition of today’s cathedral and also memorial church of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Prague 2 do not forget not only his services but also his sermons. The Vladyka—missionary—knew how to speak to the soul, from heart to heart, and from his words there always flowed a deep faith and a compelling conviction that he lived and breathed for the cause of God. In how many of them he strengthened personal faith, and how many gained enthusiasm for willing, voluntary, and God-pleasing work precisely at his side and under his leadership. In Prague Orthodox services before the acquisition of the church were not held in schools, as was the custom for example in Moravia, where we could not hold them elsewhere at all—for in Prague Orthodoxy had so many “friends,” unfortunately from the ranks of the other Christian churches, who always readily intervened in the relevant places, that it was popularly said that here the Mohammedans would have their mosque sooner than Czech Orthodox even one place where they might gather for services.

It must be emphasized that all liturgical adaptations in the outward celebration of the services and others Vladyka Gorazd made with the knowledge and blessing of the then mother Serbian Church, and later after his death and our liberation they were maintained with the blessing of the mother Russian Church, when His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Rus’ blessed everything that Vladyka—the martyr—Gorazd had introduced and arranged. For a long time at the beginning Vladyka Gorazd pondered how to arrange the worship rooms and then the interior appointments of the churches which he planned and gradually built in the church communities according as the most necessary need appeared and especially where the faithful were willing to sacrifice—and relatively much money was needed—for the erection of even a modest tabernacle of God. Toward each he then contributed from his own means always a considerable sum, even if he thereby temporarily went into debt. He considered very carefully how the faithful would receive the unaccustomed novelty—the iconostasis, which of course no Christian church among us knows or uses, and their faithful as well as the first Orthodox, who came out of the Roman Catholic Church, were not accustomed to it. Some experienced bishops of the mother Serbian Church recommended that he not introduce the iconostasis; indeed at that time advice was even given whether it would not be more suitable at first to retain even the Western rite of the Divine Liturgy. Vladyka Gorazd decided in the end for the iconostasis—though entirely low—and for the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Liturgy of St. Basil and of the Presanctified Gifts was published only in his Collection.

I recall from student years our initial services, which in Moravia were held mostly in school classrooms with the permission of the relevant school authorities. Already the mere preparation of the classroom gave work. Ordinarily such a classroom remained after a week of teaching unswept, and our sisters had first to put it in order. After the end of the Divine Liturgy they of course had to tidy everything again. At that time one larger and one smaller table in the classroom sufficed us, over which tablecloths were spread, adorned with flowers, and at the head of the larger table (the holy table) an icon or picture was placed. In the given case a nicely painted icon according to the Vasnetsov model of the Most Holy Theotokos was later placed in the new church on the iconostasis. The vestments were brought by the sacristan, the antimins and liturgical vessels by the clergyman himself. The faithful sang partial liturgical texts, versified according to the antiphons and other texts of the Divine Liturgy, and they were sung to some known religious melody, mainly of the Roman Catholic Church. Only thus was it possible both to teach and above all more closely to acquaint the faithful with the course and essence of the Divine Liturgy. Somewhere a harmonium was used in singing, but in our community even that was lacking, and a devoted brother taught the melodies on the violin. The other Christians of other confessions laughed at us everywhere. Great self-denial was needed; it was necessary to endure, not to lose heart. Then the unforgettable Vladyka Gorazd, after the ideological parting in 1924 with the Czechoslovak Church, which originally wanted to be Orthodox and used this name—the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church—officially, especially in contact with the Serbian Orthodox Church, enthusiastically exhorted to patience, discipline, and hope that it would be better for us, that the situation would improve and settle. Also then there was un-Christian agitation against the Vladyka, abuse of him in the press and at lectures, that he had betrayed and caused an ideological rupture in the new religious movement. It must be stated that Vladyka Gorazd did not betray, but after judicious entry into the new Church defended from the beginning what this Church originally wanted to be. Also his ideological guidelines, written in haste on the train from Moravia to Prague—he was charged with this at the last moment for the first sobor of the Church—in which he emphasized freedom of conscience, he did not betray; he held to them and later formulated them more precisely. He emphasized freedom of conscience because it was restricted in the Roman Catholic Church. Orthodoxy is in this sense more human, for although everyone is obliged to hold to the confession of faith established and approved by an Ecumenical Council of the Church, yet an Orthodox theologian may have his own theological opinion. Freedom of conscience is not, however, theological wilfulness or anarchy. Religion was many times belittled especially by the lay element, with which it was impossible to agree. Orthodoxy at that time was proclaimed as reactionary, obsolete, stagnant in development and in outward liturgical forms and acts. Much was made of what our legionaries from Russia liked to relate, who of course did not know Orthodoxy and had no opportunity to come to know it; they judged everything only outwardly and superficially. It was forgotten that every nation has a right to outward religious expressions and to the behaviour of the faithful at services in a manner that suits the nature of that particular nation. It must be emphasized that the Czech nation is in its essence religiously very reserved and does not love outward liturgical ostentation. It was therefore very desirable to explain to our believing person that the essence of Orthodoxy is entirely in something other than in the outward celebration of the sacred services on the one hand, and in the behaviour of the faithful at them on the other. It was a great mistake—as Vladyka Gorazd with regret often recalled—that Orthodoxy was in fact known by no one among us and that no one could concretely say wherein its inward essence lies, wherein its advantages over other Christian confessions. One cannot overlook that many times personal reasons, opinions, and whims of individuals in the leadership played a not insignificant role and always only to the detriment of the cause.

Vladyka Gorazd more than once emphasized that there ought then to have been sent to our homeland a knower of Austro-Hungarian laws, thus also of church laws, which the First Republic took over, in order to call the attention of state officials to them and especially to the fact that the Orthodox Church among us is also a congrual Church, which means that Orthodox clergy have a claim to the state salary—the congrua—like the priests of the Roman Catholic Church. That would then have meant immediate financial provision for the clergy, who of course upon transfer from the Latin Church counted on personal security. The justified claim to this matter of course Vladyka Gorazd later laboriously proved to the state after stubborn study in the archives in Vienna, Budapest, Šibenik, Pula, and Trieste. He deposited the documents in his book The Legal Position of the Orthodox Church in the CSR, and thus the Orthodox Church in our whole republic became a congrual Church. What this finding and assertion of this fact with our government would have meant already in 1920 cannot even be imagined.

Let me be permitted also to mention how much injury and unjust attacks against his person Vladyka Gorazd had to bear because from the very beginning he oriented himself uncompromisingly toward Orthodoxy. This was caused also by the fact that the agreement was not observed according to which none of the leading personalities was to intervene in Moravia, which oriented itself Orthodox, just as again the adherents of Orthodoxy were not to intervene in Bohemia. The Vladyka was of the opinion: let the believing people decide for themselves. But it is personally known to me that the Vladyka’s ideological opponents travelled precisely into Moravia even into the most remote corners and ridiculed Orthodoxy and his person.

The Vladyka was aware of the reality of what it means to set to work and form the Orthodox Church as regards both the inward and the outward; as also appeared, even some of the coworker clergy did not understand this, nor did those Orthodox who comfortably held to the old forms and methods of work. He, however, never forgot that every nation accepted Orthodoxy in its own way, that with unity of doctrine, morals, canons, and worship Orthodoxy is applied according to the disposition and character of that particular nation. It is known that even Dr. K. Farský originally raised no objection against the Eastern rite, its introduction, as well as the iconostasis in churches. He only reminded of sobriety in form. This standpoint Vladyka Gorazd also held, as later practically manifested itself in the building of our churches, which have only low iconostases with low side and main doors. At that time there was also great interest in theological questions already resolved at the Ecumenical Councils, concerning the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, whether He was the Son of God or a mere man, concerning the virginity and motherhood of the Most Holy Theotokos, and in general concerning serious theological questions. At that time also the non-religious association “Free Thought” counted on the whole new religious movement, after radicalization, passing into the ranks of Free Thought. It was necessary to explain everything to the faithful, to give serious and exhaustive answers, to make accessible even the harder theological problems, so that they might understand what are articles of faith, which are unchangeable, what are Christian moral, liturgical, and canonical principles. By the later publication of the Vladyka’s catechism many of these things became entirely clear to the faithful.

The experienced and knowledgeable outstanding hierarch of the Russian Church in Yugoslavia, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, counselled and wrote to Vladyka Gorazd: “In the first place turn your attention to the doctrinal opinions of your countrymen and illuminate for them what in them is Orthodox and what is un-Orthodox, and even in that confine yourself only to the main things. Let your guide therein be the time of the Great Schism, further the Council of Trent, and finally the Vatican Council. What is not a constituent of Orthodox doctrine, strive to eradicate from religious life. It will give you much work before you overcome the prejudices that in Western Europe in general and also among you are spread against Orthodoxy. In introducing Orthodox forms into liturgical life proceed step by step and slowly, rather more slowly than more quickly, for Czechs, as far as I have come to know them, are strongly individualistically disposed and at the same time inquiring rationalists who will not let anything be imposed on them from without and thus neither by church authority, which is only now forming among you, but want to get to the bottom of everything; yet when they are suitably instructed, they gladly let themselves be told and obey.—I feared that those of the Russians (this the hierarch of Russian nationality wrote) who very little understand what faith is and what rite is will make unpleasantnesses for you, as in apostolic times the Jewish Christians did to the neophytes. I highly value the rite and the holy rules of the Church, yet I understand quite well that these historically accumulated works cannot be accepted all at once.—From people who cannot rise above narrow-minded formalism you will certainly be criticized and perhaps even condemned, but be calm, for you will not be answerable to them. Work according to your best knowledge and rely on the help of God” (Herald of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy, Year VII, No. 9). That was speech worthy of a great man of God who perfectly mastered the problem of missionary work in general and among Czechs especially.

And so slowly with the help of God the work succeeded, albeit with great obstacles, the disfavour of the surroundings, and unimaginable difficulties. Yet Vladyka Gorazd, strengthened by faith in God, in hope in Him, and with devoted love for the work of God, persevered and worked so that in 1929 the first Orthodox eparchy was organized and state-approved. Let us hear what Vladyka Gorazd himself wrote on the fifteenth anniversary of his consecration as bishop (25 September 1921 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia). “It is true that this time was filled with many labours which often, especially in earlier years, descended upon me like a whirlwind, so that not infrequently I did not even know to what to devote myself first so that the rest might not be neglected. All these labours I performed gladly, partly because from young years I love work, partly also because it was for the greater part creative work, which is indeed accompanied by inward suffering and often also by misunderstanding on the part of the surroundings, but in the end brings all the greater joy. Besides work that time also brought me many cares, which I accepted as a burden laid upon me by God; that I might not sink, it was necessary daily to ask God for help. The greatest trials were prepared for me by disappointment in people who did not prove themselves as I had relied on them and expected of them. It is easier to face open enemies and opponents than to work with unreliable or insincere, treacherous and insidious people. Most painfully I also bore the parting with those who, being dilettantes and having no breadth of view, succumbed to one-sided influence, imagined themselves in the role of supposed defenders of Orthodoxy, and worked against me, although I proceed in complete accord with the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church.—There were also many struggles, yet I have the consciousness that on my side they were entirely only defensive struggles against dangers that threatened the begun work now from this side, now from that. If amid all those blows, trials, misunderstandings, and also my personal imperfections, faults, defects, errors, and insufficiencies certain successes were achieved, it is a proof that the Lord stood by our common work. Without His evident help we should have built nothing. To Him be thanks rendered and His will be done with us.” (In moments of defensive struggles no public press without exception would publish for Vladyka Gorazd any defence, even the slightest, and it was required of him that for short lines only and a statement of the truth he pay sums as for a newspaper advertisement. Such financial means, however, Vladyka Gorazd did not have.)

“Amid all joyful and painful events it was a strength to me to know that I did not thrust myself into the sanctuary of God nor into my present office. I never longed for a significant place nor for an outstanding role. If ever in life I sought anything, I did it not for my person but for the cause. The consciousness of responsibility, so heavy when it is a matter of responsibility not only for oneself but also for others, drew me throughout life into seclusion, for I am convinced that I shall scarcely be able to give account for myself. A serious eye disease, ordinarily ending in complete blindness, was indeed an unwelcome event, but when blindness seemed inevitable I inwardly reconciled myself to it entirely, for it appeared to me a means of liberation from responsibility for others and of inward concentration. I have reason to believe that God did not agree with my constant inclination toward solitude and seclusion, when the diseased process in the eyes stopped to such an extent that with certain interruptions I can work.” (Vladyka Gorazd greatly longed for the founding of a monastery where at least with three brothers he would pray for the Church, celebrate the services, and work on translations, history, and other fields of church work. He always emphasized that without a monastery the Church would hardly have a suitable episcopal candidate. Martyr’s death made it impossible for him to realize this intention.)

“He is my witness that I did not wish in any case to bind my participation in the movement that arose in church life among us after the World War with any, even the most insignificant, church office. If I accepted it in the spring and in August 1921 by election, being compelled thereto, I regarded it only as a temporary way out of the then situation, hoping firmly that my function would last only a short time. To go for consecration to Yugoslavia I categorically refused in the first days of September 1921, so that the envoy Fr. Protodeacon Niketič, who was to accompany me, had to depart without me. Only upon the general insistence of all did I resolve to set out on the journey to Yugoslavia when the same envoy came again to Olomouc. What I undertook in Sremski Karlovci that my consecration might not take place, I for the present consider it my duty to keep silent. If nevertheless the hands of the consecrators rested upon my unworthy and wretched head, it happened only because I regarded myself and also in the future can and shall regard myself merely as the forerunner of him who is to come after me. I am nothing but a missionary who prepares the way and who longs for nothing but to be able to hand over to him who comes the Czech Orthodox eparchy as ready as possible in clergy and in membership and in all else. That after the hierarch—missionary there will come a hierarch to whom it will be fitting to hold the hierarchical staff, I am firmly convinced, for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the Czech and Slovak nation is the work of God” (Herald of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy, Year VII, No. 9).

Thus thought and acted the modest, wise, deeply believing, and devoted to the work of God, sensitive and gentle first archpastor of restored Orthodoxy in our nation, Vladyka Gorazd. At that time he also wrote: “Who knows whether now there is not a moment—perhaps for a long time the last—which is given us by God that we may prove ourselves as members of the Church who are worthy of the greatness of the Orthodox Church.” (Six years thereafter he was arrested by the Gestapo, tortured, and on 4 September 1942 executed with his companions.)

Of course Vladyka Gorazd was also greatly interested in ecumenical questions, primarily from the Orthodox standpoint and one may say from the local, domestic one. He always emphasized that he is a missionary, and to work in an environment so alien and hostile was a very exhausting and draining work. All Christians of other confessions among us took a negative attitude toward Orthodoxy. They did not wish Orthodoxy to take root again, strengthen, and spread. Perhaps no hierarch of any old, organized Orthodox Church in the world can imagine the organizing of a young Church when everything necessary must be virtually “stamped out of the ground.”

Therefore the Vladyka martyr so regretted that a general church council or at least a council of the Orthodox Churches does not convene for the resolution of various practical-church questions. He considered it altogether a weakness of Orthodoxy that the autocephalous Orthodox Churches do not have at least a permanent common central synod of representatives of all the Churches which would immediately react to the events and needs of each particular Church and always take a ready position toward everything. He believed that by the creation of a central Orthodox synod the convening of a pan-Orthodox council would be made possible. Thereby the reproach of Christians of other confessions that Orthodoxy is not flexible and ready would be blunted.

He always lively debated the need to convene a general council, which for centuries had not been convened, for also in Eastern Christianity there appears a need to correct, adapt, eventually also resolve and newly establish much by which we live in today’s time and which the inward situation of all Orthodox Churches requires, as for example the question of the marriage of clergy or the question of married bishops in a specially serious case. He always indicated that many of the great ones of humanity were married, had their family cares, and yet in their lifetime accomplished much. He himself of course remained unmarried, and yet as a truly and deeply believing Orthodox hierarch, knowing the life and needs of the Church, he was openly for such a solution.

Vladyka Gorazd was precisely as a Czech Orthodox hierarch a great and ardent Slav, not a talker and dreamer. “Idealizing of the Slavs and distortion of reality were foreign to him. He went about it entirely practically and learned Serbian and Russian so that he might immediately come to know sources and people. Foreign to him were some zealots for the Slavs who however had not even learned to read the Cyrillic alphabet. He especially wished that the clergy should know Old Slavonic and be able to celebrate the services as they are served among the Russians, Serbs, and Bulgarians” (Dr. Prot. A. J. Novák, Voice of Orthodoxy, Year 1960, No. 5).

That he was a fervent and warm patriot need not even be emphasized. He loved his nation and worked for its welfare from a sense of religious duty. Already from student years he occupied himself with the problem of the Germanization of the border parts of our homeland. “It was clear to him that the true causes of this unhappy phenomenon were primarily social, but not least also the Germanizing efforts of the Western Church. His study of these questions culminated in an unpublished¹ work from the time of the occupation, in which he subjected to criticism all these methods and especially neighbouring fascism” (Ibid.). “When in 1914 Austria attacked Serbia, he fundamentally rejected this aggression, although the official (Catholic) Church vainly supported it. This attitude of the Church—beside further reasons—was a cause of his later decision to work for the Orthodox Church” (Ibid.). “Interest in the national-social affairs of our people did not leave the Vladyka even in the times of the First Republic. He sensed that the rise of the Soviet state is a great turning point in the history of humanity; he rejected all forms of totalitarianism and fascism, especially when this cloaked itself in a religious garment, as was the case in Spain.”

Of the Soviet suppression of the Orthodox Church and of religion in general holy Vladyka Gorazd spoke publicly in his lectures and rejected this and other forms of totalitarianism. Czech Orthodox journalism was in the period between the World Wars one of the few papers openly calling attention to the dreadful situation in Russia, to the raging of the Bolsheviks and the inhuman practices of the Soviet government—the extermination of whole groups of the population, the brutal liquidation of the clergy, the deportation of the faithful to concentration camps, the demolition of churches by gunfire, and the like; ed. note.

Most distinctly the Vladyka manifested himself in the time of Munich. His encyclical message to the heads of the Orthodox Churches, in which he protested against the Munich violence, is sufficiently known. The Vladyka was directly angry when our government handed over the border parts of the state to the enemy. “One ought to have fought!” he greeted me after my return from mobilization. (Thus the Vladyka spoke with everyone who then did not have to enter military service, and emphasized that our ancestors never in history acted so shamefully; they always knew how to fight bravely and defend themselves and they conquered.) He suffered in the following years from the presence of the occupiers, despised them, made it known wherever he could. He stirred hope among the faithful, travelled round the church communities, gave lectures, took part in a two-day session of young members of the Church, into whose hearts he instilled manliness and fearlessness. And when he was called upon personally to sacrifice himself, even this he did not hesitate to do at the price of his own life.

Yet Vladyka Gorazd, with all his combativeness for the social and national cause, knew well what war can bring, especially one waged by fascists, whose raging he had opportunity to observe in the homeland and in Europe. He knew history too well. He does not hesitate to call peace efforts “a step toward salvation” and “a truly Christlike endeavour.” The Vladyka then continues literally: “If the consciousness of peace entered into all human souls among all nations, if all people realized how terrible and utterly un-Christian a thing it is to kill one another by thousands and hundreds of thousands, they would surely know how even in the greatest entanglements to find a satisfactory way out.” And he asks: “Is it possible that that time should come?” and answers: “It is possible; it is only necessary that all should want it!” (Quotations used from the article of Dr. Prot. A. J. Novák, Voice of Orthodoxy, Year 1960, No. 5).

Finally one must also mention the great kindness of his noble heart. He helped wherever he could, as he could. From his modest financial means he often gave even to such as were not worthy of it; they deceived him and lied to him and exploited his kindness.

Vladyka Gorazd of course remembered first of all the needs of the Church. He left himself until the last place. He lived very modestly and what he denied himself he provided for others. By his attentiveness and kindness to people he became popularly known. In the time when he apostolized in the church communities he associated also with Christians of other confessions. And all loved him; they greeted him from afar and immensely respected him. In one community they used to say of him “that is our bishop.” When need arose, the Vladyka saved anxiously. The publication of the Collection of Prayers and Chants cost over seventy thousand Kč, which the Vladyka systematically saved and himself paid for the whole edition of this important book. He prepared for this for several years. Thus he covered many expenses in the Church.

Thus worked, thought, acted, and died the modern Orthodox apostle in the Czech lands.

Note:

At the time when the author wrote these lines, the work was still in manuscript. It appeared in part in the collection Bishop Gorazd – From His Works, Prague 1988. The unpublished parts are being prepared for publication; ed. note.

— Prot. Bohumír Aleš, from his estate / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Saint Gorazd II and the Patristic Tradition of the Primitive Church⌗

Czech original: Svatý Gorazd II. a patristická tradice prvotní církve

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32)

“Always and under all circumstances man is to know the truth, because without knowledge of the truth we cannot put the truth into practice” (Saint Gorazd II)

It is truly gratifying that our Church has resolved to prepare for the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Vladyka Saint Gorazd a theological publication in which an article on his relation to the patristic tradition of the primitive Church will not be lacking. Vladyka Saint Gorazd was born in a land which since the death of Saint Methodius, Archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia, has lived essentially without this tradition. So it is in the sphere of theology and in the sphere of liturgical life. The Cyrillo-Methodian Church built on the principles of the Gospel, on apostolic Tradition, and on patristic theology, which enriched all areas of the spiritual and liturgical life of this Church, was liquidated. An exception was formed by the border regions which for several more centuries protected this great spiritual wealth, especially however eastern Slovakia, which managed to preserve this inheritance until our days despite frequent and indescribable attacks of our enemies. But the spirit of this Tradition, the spirit of Orthodoxy, lived in the nation still long, and many outstanding personalities of our nations in Bohemia and in Slovakia strove for its renewal. Vladyka Saint Gorazd belongs indisputably among them, and God granted that he be an active restorer of Orthodoxy among us, a restorer of apostolic and patristic Tradition in all areas of church life. He himself became a bishop of the restored Church and in the present time also its saint for his faithfulness to the faith, the Church, and the nation. In his little book on the saints of the cathedral church of Saint Gorazd (the disciple of Saint Methodius) in Olomouc he wrote: “The Orthodox Church has very many of God’s saints, men and women, from all the nations in which it had and has its confessors. Unfortunately Orthodox saints, although they are in the great majority sons and daughters of nations related to us by blood—Belarusian, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, and Ukrainian, as well as of the Greek nation, from which came the teachers and apostles of all the Slavs—Saints Cyril and Methodius, are in our homeland almost unknown.”¹

Everyone who returns to the Orthodox Church as the continuer of the apostolic Church, undivided, is spurred thereto among other things also by the wealth of patristic theology. Vladyka Saint Gorazd reflected on the renewal of the Church in which he lived, and in this direction he was neither the first nor the last in a time when in Europe there took place serious changes: religious, cultural, economic, and political. He experienced the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which was powerfully supported by the Latin Church, and he could rejoice at the rise of the Czechoslovak Republic as an independent state of Czechs and Slovaks and of the other nationalities living on its territory. “The rise of the Czechoslovak Republic,” writes Prof. Dr. Pavel Aleš, “brought many changes into social and spiritual life. They touched markedly also the religious sphere. There arises an extensive movement, led by Catholic clergy of reform views, which soon draws by the idea of a national Church some half a million people. Matěj Pavlík (today Saint Gorazd; ed. note)…, swept along by the general enthusiasm of the people for the new Church, also joins this movement when at the same time on 11 October 1920 he parted from the Roman Catholic Church.”²

But in this new religious movement in Bohemia and Moravia, from its beginning, differences of opinion began to deepen and crystallize. Vladyka Saint Gorazd in good time perceived and also understood the danger of extreme radicalism in the movement and the necessity of resting its spiritual life upon the Tradition of the Church, the faith of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the apostolic succession of the episcopate. Because he was distinguished by rich knowledge in the sphere of church history, he arrived by examination of this problem at the conviction that such is the Orthodox Church, toward which previous generations of outstanding personalities of our nations oriented themselves, especially the national awakeners, writers, philosophers. Therefore already the first sobor of the new Church accepted Orthodox ethics and the Orthodox formulation of doctrine,³ which is unthinkable without the theology of the holy Fathers and without further deepened study of patristic theology in general. The present return to all-round study of the life, writings, theology, and activity of the Fathers only confirms this, and our present local Orthodox Church also pays due attention to this problematics.

In order that we may concretely assess Vladyka Saint Gorazd’s relation to the patristic tradition, we shall cite a few words from the quoted little book on his veneration of the saints of the Church: “Orthodox saints are men, women, even, as we have convinced ourselves, children, people of every age, of every calling, of every century and of various manners of death. Among them are martyrs, confessors, clergy of all degrees, monks, hermits, and people living in the world: rulers, commanders and simple soldiers, high and subordinate officials, philosophers, writers, poets, visual artists, physicians, lawyers, merchants, tradesmen, farmers, servants and maids, members of the nobility and simple people…”⁴ As this saying indicates, Vladyka Saint Gorazd quite correctly determined—we would even say defined—one of the fundamental principles of Orthodoxy, that the Gospel of Christ is addressed to all people, that God is He who calls all, who opens hearts to its understanding, who makes no distinction among those who have believed, and that saints are not a matter of only a certain time, because as long as the Church is on earth, so long will the Holy Spirit dwell in it and sanctify those who have truly believed and witnessed their faith by confession and by life. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that in the Church there is already neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, male nor female, because all are brothers, members of the Body of the Church (Gal. 3:26–29), children of God clothed in Christ. Thus God called fishermen to be apostles, philosophers (Justin), lawyers (John Chrysostom), high officials and poets (John of Damascus), aristocrats (Basil the Great), and so on. So it is also today. Each of them became famous before God by his faith and confession; in each of them the power of Christian faith was proved. This thought has as its foundation eucharistic ecclesiology, which does not look at the social origin of its members but at whether they are capable of participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, in the Holy Eucharist, participation in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

We shall now touch upon some areas of life and faith that were in the forefront of the interest of Vladyka Saint Gorazd, and their parallel with the patristic Tradition will be altogether evident.

In the teaching about God (theology) Vladyka Saint Gorazd holds to the fundamental principle of Scripture and of patristic Tradition. God is the cause of all creation, which was called to life out of love. God Himself is absolute Being, which as such is inaccessible to human reason and human knowledge. Over against the fact that the divine essence is unknowable, God reveals Himself to man in a manner that is for him acceptable and salvific. In this case Vladyka Saint Gorazd holds to the apophatic principle in the knowledge of God and also in anthropology, which teaches that man is created according to the image and likeness of God and as such can enter into living and personal contact with God. As the Being (Essence) of God is a mystery, so also is the human being a mystery. God’s kinship with us and ours with Him enables man to receive divine revelation, illumination, enrichment, which culminates even in the deification of man. God revealed His will through chosen people (Adam, Moses, Abraham, the prophets, the patriarchs, the kings). Characteristic of both the Old and the New Testament is that both were revealed by the same God through the Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit. The revealed teaching was protected as Tradition and as Scripture, concerning whose authority the Church led by the Holy Spirit decided. The Old and New Testaments in fact represent one revelation, one divine plan of the salvation of the world and of man, realized as it were in two stages: preparation for the reception of the Saviour (the Old Testament) and the reception of the Saviour (the New Testament). Therefore the Church accepted the whole of Scripture as its own, and the norm of the interpretation of Scripture is she herself, because she is led by the Holy Spirit, thanks to which she is the bearer of the whole Tradition.⁵

As patristic one must also consider Vladyka Saint Gorazd’s view of the problem of faith, which he understands not as rational knowledge but as inward experience and certainty of the existence of God and of His relation to the created world. Therefore faith is to be confessed by prayer, liturgically, by life, by concrete deeds that have as their aim the good of neighbours, by the protection of the faith and the preservation of its purity. Plurality in confession and life is according to him unthinkable, for the confession of faith must be unitary in order to be the foundation of the unity of the Church and of liturgical communion. Therefore he categorically rejected the idea of the division of the Church, the possibility of the rise of new churches on the basis of a new and non-original faith, the change of the content of faith. In relation to the Western Church this was the question of the schism of the year 1054 and the question of the change of the Symbol of Faith by the addition of the Filioque (and from the Son). The mentioned schism was the cause of further divisions of Christians and of further dogmatic changes to the detriment of all Christendom.⁶

The faith of the Church has a Trinitarian, Christological, soteriological, and pneumatological-ecclesiological orientation. The content of the faith is entrusted to the whole Church. The guardian of the faith is all the believing people; the witnesses of the faith are primarily priests and bishops in unity with the whole Church; therefore clericalism is foreign to the Orthodox Church. The truth about the triune God is the foundation of the faith of the New Testament Church, is the starting point of New Testament theology and also the starting point in the elucidation of the whole wealth of the faith of the Church. Therefore a change of Trinitarian theology and of the teaching of the Church has directly catastrophic consequences for the life of the Church and of Christendom in general. From this follows the uncompromisingness of the Orthodox Church in questions of faith. In deciding on the orientation of the movement that strove for church renewal, Vladyka Saint Gorazd wrote these remarkable words: “This is what is at stake here, and not a personal question. In full consciousness of my great responsibility I say that our movement will fulfil its task and will have sense and significance only when it consciously takes its stand on that foundation on which the apostles stood, when it takes its stand on the firm rock of the redemptive work of Christ, and not on the crumbling sand of human reasoning, which today is such and tomorrow will be other. History sufficiently teaches us that whenever any movement that arose in Christianity tore itself away from the apostolic soil, it always withered into a sect which existed for a certain time and then vegetated… I affirm: if our movement will not be in connection with the apostolic age, if it will not be founded on the firm rock of faith in Christ, as the Gospel beautifully expresses it: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!’ (Matt. 16:17), and if it will seek another foundation, if it will build on various systems which today are popular and tomorrow will prove empty, then every effort is a pity. We want… to build something firm and indestructible, about which we need not fear.”⁷

Thereby we have come to a serious dogmatic area—the teaching about the Church. We have left aside Christology and soteriology, for Vladyka Saint Gorazd in this direction held to the original apostolic teaching. Christ is for him the Son of God and our Saviour. He understood salvation apostolically and not juridically, as was the custom at that time in the West.

In order that we may speak of the patristic spirit of the ecclesiology of Vladyka Saint Gorazd, we shall cite several statements of a foremost and reliable witness of the post-apostolic age—Saint Ignatius of Antioch († 110). In the first place this holy Father emphasized the unity of the members of the Church and their unanimity. He regarded himself as a man of unity (Philad. 8.1). He used proofs from the apostolic epistles. The Church is primarily the Body of Christ (Smyrn. 1.2; 4.2), the building of God (Eph. 9.1), the common temple of all the faithful; it is Christ Himself (Magn. 7.2), a choir that has struck God’s tone and in unanimity sings with one voice to the Father through the Son (Eph. 4.2). The Church lives a new life in Christ (Eph. 9.2), who is the unity of the members of the Church (Trall. 11.2). Jesus is the Head of the Church and the faithful are members of the Body of the Church (Eph. 4.2). Into this unity the faithful are joined by faith, love (Magn. 13.2; Trall. 8.1), a common altar and a common eucharistic sacrifice. “Strive to partake of one supper of the Lord. For there is one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His Blood. There is one sacrificial altar as there is one bishop with the presbyter and with the deacons…” (Trall. 7.1). “Wherever the bishop appears, there let also the whole (local) church be. Just as where Christ is, there is the catholic Church” (Smyrn. 8.2).

Let us now look at how Vladyka Saint Gorazd reflected on the same: “Christ wanted to have one Church, a catholic Church; He wanted this one Church to offer its spiritual service to all nations, that in it all nations might feel at home, as with their mother. This problem cannot be resolved otherwise than so that each nation have its national (Orthodox) Church, but also that each of these national Churches belong to the one catholic Church. It will be able to belong to it (each local Church) only when it remains on the foundations of the primitive Church and when it will be in connection with those national Churches that have preserved this foundation. To be in this connection and to belong to this one and catholic Church of Christ our movement also wanted.” A few lines below he adds: “O let us be willing to bear every pain, only when we find ourselves in the company of the apostles, only when we find ourselves in the communion of the apostolic churches, only when we are a part of the catholic Church of Christ, only when Christ will be among us, only when the Holy Spirit will burn in our hearts. Only then will it be the true birth of a national Christian Church in our nation.”⁸

When we now compare these sayings of the saint with the teaching of Saint Ignatius, we find that this his teaching is identical with the patristic teaching not only of Saint Ignatius but with the teaching of all the holy Fathers, who only deepened, developed, and elucidated this teaching. Remarkable here is the agreement of the mentalities of these saints. Ignatius feared for his Church when he was condemned to death, but he believed that until the appointment of a new bishop God would be her bishop. Saint Gorazd also feared for the fate of the Church being restored, but he also believed that everything is in the hands of God; therefore his faith did not go empty. The small Church led by him found itself in the family of the local apostolic and Orthodox Churches and in this unity also develops. The above-cited words of Vladyka Saint Gorazd have a prophetic character; it is the longing of a saint—prophet, for his Church had to bear great pain, liquidation in the time of the German occupation, but it did not perish; on the contrary, it gained independence, thus became a national Church, as are all the local and national Orthodox Churches. Thereby the aspirations of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius and of their disciples were fulfilled, who in the protection of the apostolic inheritance had to survive many pains, “every pain,” but did not betray the Church of God. This conviction holy Vladyka expressed in Brno in the year 1920.

This truth about the Church Vladyka Saint Gorazd emphasizes also in his work On the Nature of the Orthodox Church. It is said therein: “The fundamental characteristic property of the Orthodox Church is that its inward and outward character was formed partly immediately in the apostolic and post-apostolic age, partly in the age of the Church Fathers, those men who in an unexampled exertion of all spiritual powers created a synthesis from the religious values of the Gospel and of Greco-Byzantine culture.”⁹ Therefore in the East it did not happen that the Church rejected science and scientific findings. True, the Church distinguished and differentiated the scientific and the religious approach to every serious question of human life, but it did not persecute science. The Greek world valued human reason too highly, its mission in the knowledge of the world and of man himself; therefore the Fathers did not murmur against reason as such, but strove for its illumination by the grace (blessing) of the Holy Spirit, that it might be capable of receiving divine grace (blessing) and of penetrating into the mysteries of God and of the mysteries of the world and of man.

The spirit of the apostolic and post-apostolic age, as well as of the age of the holy Fathers of the first centuries of the Church, is to this day preserved in the Orthodox Church, in all areas of its life.

Very markedly it manifests itself in divine service. “Whoever has had opportunity to know the content of the services,” Vladyka Saint Gorazd further says, “the prayers in them offered to God, the chants sung at them and the readings of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments… will recognize that in it… everything is in its place.” In the symbols of the service, in the prayers, singing, and reading of Scripture there manifests itself the consciousness of the presence of God, before Whose face all stand in spiritual unity, which is intensified by the consciousness of the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, by Whose power the Church continually perfects and sanctifies itself. In all the services there often sounds the motif of universal and mutual love, which was the decisive virtue of the first Christians. The Church prays for all the living and the dead. Of the living she especially remembers widows, orphans, the suffering, the imprisoned, captives, the persecuted, the poor, the abandoned, the sick, travellers, those who help and serve them. This social factor is rooted both in doctrine and in liturgical piety and theology. These prayers to this day have lost nothing of their timeliness, because they are truly Christian and spring from the spirit and thinking of the first Christians. The early Christian origin is preserved also in the whole structure and framework of the services of the Orthodox Church, Vladyka Saint Gorazd further emphasizes, in the conciliarity of the services; therefore an Orthodox priest can never celebrate a service without the presence of the people of God, who form the Church whose servant the priest is. “Orthodox services are distinguished by the élan of the early Christian age; it is a common movement of united souls and hearts gathered around Christ, who is present here.” In a special way the spirit of the Fathers manifests itself on the great feasts, such as the Nativity of Christ, Theophany, Pascha, Pentecost. Into these services, prayers, and hymns were taken the jewels of the theological thinking of the foremost Fathers and theologians of the Church; therefore there manifests itself in them an invaluable spiritual dynamism, power, and movement.

Nor did Vladyka Saint Gorazd forget the today timely question—the relation of the Church to the state. The Church does not set itself in opposition with regard to the state, but includes it and its representatives in its prayers: “Remember, O Lord, our state and its head and her lawful coworkers. Encompass their activity with peace; awaken in their hearts favour toward Thy holy Orthodox Church, that we also, her members, may live peaceably in the true faith, devoutly and honourably.” The Church of Christ never cursed the state and its government, although more than once the relation of the state to her was hostile and she was persecuted by it. That too is the spirit of Christ and of the apostles, the spirit of the primitive Church, the spirit of the Fathers.

When our saint was to express himself on the question of the future of the Orthodox Church among us, he did not wish to fantasize, but soberly judged that Orthodoxy here has a future and corresponds to the spirit of our nations as Slavic: “How many foreign people who were at our divine services for the first time expressed that they had the impression as if in it they saw and heard something that was hidden in their soul and that as it were was emerging from their subconscious. They had the impression that there was returning to them a dear, warming, and sunny inheritance of the forefathers and great-grandfathers, and as if over everything they saw and heard there hovered the clear, exalted, and kindly figures of the holy apostles of the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius.” Proceeding from this idea, which is not deceptive but true, and also from this true and undeceptive feeling of the Slavic soul, Vladyka Saint Gorazd expressed this wish: “Well then, wherein does Orthodoxy see its task? In this, that it as a ‘tender form of Christianity, enabling true religious life,’ as some specialists have characterized it, may develop also among us to the benefit of the faithful and of the whole of society. I am convinced that precisely the Orthodox Church is capable of spreading this consciousness among the faithful, both by its religious essence and also because it never in history found itself in conflict with our national idea, and that it cannot even find itself in such a conflict, because in it there is truly a directly classical union of Christianity and humanism. Where there is genuine and living Christianity, there is also morality, there is also humanity, there is also social feeling, there is also inward strength; there is also eternal salvation.”¹⁰

To this wish, which is at the same time the legacy of this our saint and restorer of Orthodoxy among us, restorer of the apostolic and patristic spirit in faith and in piety, in divine service and in social engagement, nothing need be added, but it must be resolutely and with love fulfilled, all our powers devoted to it, for it is a living witness of Orthodoxy sealed by the martyrdom of blood in the hard times and trials of our nations and of the Church. We have for this today all the presuppositions, the grace of God which abides in our Church by the presence of the Holy Spirit, who grants to every member of the Church gifts for the fulfilment of his calling, which is from God and holy.

References to literature used:

1/ Gorazd, bishop, Guide to the Cathedral Church of Saint Gorazd in Olomouc, Olomouc 1987, 76.

2/ Aleš P., Bishop Gorazd and His Work, From His Works, Prague 1988, 14.

3/ Aleš P., op. cit., 14.

4/ Gorazd, bishop, Guide … 76.

5/ Orthodox Catechism, Prague 1954, 5–14.

6/ Ibid., 15–16; On the Nature of the Orthodox Church, From His Works, 291–292.

7/ For the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, sermon on Pentecost Sunday, From His Works, pp. 227–228.

8/ Ibid., 228–229.

9/ On the Nature of the Orthodox Church, From His Works, 296.

10/ Ibid., 298–303.

— Prot. ThDr. Štefan Pružinský / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

The Doctrinal Profile of Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Věroučný profil vladyky Gorazda

Vladyka the New Martyr Gorazd was one of those Czechs who dedicated their whole life to the restoration of Orthodoxy in that part of our homeland where the seed of the Orthodox faith was sown by Ss. Cyril—Constantine—and Methodius.

At the time when the memorandum of the new Czechoslovak Church was under discussion in Serbia, the church committee decided to convene a synod on the day of the first anniversary of the founding of the Czechoslovak Church. The task of this synod was to give the new movement a clear doctrinal teaching. In a church within which two currents were contending with one another, this was no easy task. Of the disunity and lack of clarity that prevailed in the new movement, even the fact that the synod was convened without the necessary preparations, without a study of doctrinal questions, bears witness. Yet it was to decide on questions as weighty as dogmatic problems. The Central Committee of the Church long could not find a speaker who would be willing to prepare a doctrinal teaching for the synod. It came about that at the last moment this task was taken upon himself by Matěj Pavlík, later Bishop Gorazd. Very little time remained for preparation, and therefore Matěj Pavlík would most gladly have declined this task. He understood, however, that a refusal would mean the shipwreck of the synod, from which the new Christian movement expected much.

In fulfilling this task, Vladyka Gorazd first shows himself as a good knower of Eastern theology. He does not present to the synod a doctrinal teaching, but only guidelines in which he proposes to the new movement that the foundation of the faith be the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and the resolutions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. From this principle it is clearly seen that the holy Vladyka Gorazd, from the very beginning of the formation of the new Christian movement, stood on the position of Orthodoxy, which in its doctrine holds to the ordinances of the seven Ecumenical Councils.

The movement from which the Czechoslovak Church arose was strongly influenced by the then modern theory of evolution. According to it, even doctrinal truths are subject to evolution (that is, to development). Vladyka Gorazd, however, in his guidelines proposed that a new classification of all formulations of Christian teaching be created. He understood the principle of evolution in doctrine in such a way that it is necessary that Christian dogmas be more accessible for the modern age, that they be expressed in living speech more intelligible for a given time; this does not mean, however, that they will be changed in their essence.

Of the theological erudition of Vladyka Gorazd the People’s Collection of Prayers and Chants of the Orthodox Church bears witness, in which there is a translation of liturgical texts into Czech. This work required of the author a knowledge of Orthodox theology. For the Eastern Orthodox Church is specific in this, that by doctrinal truths it glorifies God in the Trinity. By mastering this task Vladyka Gorazd created a Czech theological terminology, which from today’s standpoint is invaluable. From this work further continuators of his may proceed.

A work that shows the theological profile of Vladyka Gorazd is his catechism. It is written in the classical manner in the form of questions and answers. Very valuable from the doctrinal aspect are the author’s notes in the individual chapters, in which he critically points out the difference between Eastern and Western theological doctrine.

In treating triadology he does not accept the Filioque. Further he rejects the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pope; he builds ecclesiology on a conciliar foundation. He likewise does not accept the Western teaching on the existence of purgatory. He does not acknowledge the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (at St. Anne’s).

One may boldly say that Vladyka Gorazd stood firmly on the position of Eastern Orthodox theology. In his catechism he also points out that Eastern Orthodox theology is firmly anchored in Scripture. In explaining Tradition he places great emphasis on the works of the holy Fathers of the Church. Vladyka Gorazd rejects the teaching on predestination and points to the importance of works from motives of faith. He exhorts the Christian that his faith be active; he calls the baptized person to activity. The Holy Mystery of Baptism—the Vladyka emphasizes—does not introduce a person into passivity, but into an active life in Christ. The life of the Christian is a life in prayer. At the centre of Christian life he places the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist, in which the Christian receives the Body and Blood of Christ. He also gives the reason why in the Orthodox Church children may approach Communion. He points out that everyone who has been chrismated is an “adult” member of the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. In the Eastern Orthodox context he explains the gravity of the priestly, diaconal, and episcopal ministry. An important role in the life of the Church is played by the layperson and the family. The Holy Mystery of Marriage is an image of the unity of Christ and the Church. The Mystery of anointing with consecrated oil is given for healing; it is not “extreme unction.”

For Christian ethics the commandment of love for God and for neighbour is binding. The Christian must be a bearer of love and understanding. He cannot spread hatred and malice. A Christian without love is not a Christian.

By the publication of the Orthodox Catechism, Vladyka Gorazd, the New Martyr, showed himself as an erudite theologian for whom Eastern Orthodox theology is the foundation for his life and activity as a bishop. One may say that Vladyka Gorazd was a bishop who understood the fundamental principle of Christianity, that orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy. And precisely in this lies the greatness of the personality of Vladyka Gorazd as an Orthodox theologian, because he does not understand theology as a speculative discipline. For this his stance let us be grateful to him.

— Prot. ThDr. Imrich Belejkanič

Literature used: Vladyka Gorazd: Orthodox Catechism; Prague 1940; 2nd ed. 1950; 3rd ed. 1994. People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church; 1933; 2nd ed. 1951. Address of the brothers M. Pavlík and E. Dlouhý on the days of the congress of the Czechoslovak Church, 8 and 9 January in Prague; in the book General Congress of the Czechoslovak Church held on Saturday and Sunday, 8 and 9 January 1921 in Prague; Prague 1921. “That It May Be Clear,” Za pravdou 1922, nos. 8, 9, 10. Bishop Gorazd: On the Tasks and Orientation of the Czechoslovak Church; Olomouc 1922. From the collection “Shepherd and Martyr” (Olomouc 1992–1995) (Internet publication September 2013)

The Liturgical Activity of Saint Bishop Gorazd: Foundations, Conception, Aims⌗

Czech original: Liturgická činnost svatého biskupa Gorazda, východiska, koncepce, cíle

“Within twenty years no one will be able to reproach our Church with any difference from the other Orthodox Churches either as regards the outward or as regards the inward.” It was no small aim that Saint Vladyka set for himself by this saying, uttered in the presence of the chairman of the board of elders of the Prague church community, Eng. F. Lev, and attested by the witness of Fr. Archimandrite Andrej (Vsevolod Kolomacký, † 13 February 1980). Many would understand the saying cited at the beginning in a narrowly ritual reach. In the saint’s conception, however, it had a far wider significance. For the Vladyka well knew what all identity with world Orthodoxy includes within itself. He knew that Orthodoxy does not limit its activity only to care for the spiritual growth of the individual in the narrowest religious sense, that it strives for the all-round development of the whole body of the Church as a living unified whole. He understood—and wished to lead even the youngest rising generation of his eparchy¹ to such knowledge—that Orthodoxy alone of all Christendom has managed to project the theological truth of the two natures in Christ into the practical everyday life of the faithful. Therefore only Orthodoxy has the right to be a national Church, the palladium of the nation, because concurrently with care for “every soul of Orthodox Christians that is suffering and afflicted, asking God’s help and salvation”² it also has in mind the all-round development of the believing nation as a whole, its path through history and its relation to the homeland as the home of the family of the nation. In all this his eparchy too was to be at one.

From this consciousness grows the breadth of the Vladyka’s working range. The monastery which he was building was to be both a school of Eastern Orthodox piety and a place of full liturgical experience, and also a centre of religious and national educational activity. The monastic community, an indispensable element for the successful development of Orthodox spirituality, was to fulfil, just as in the other Orthodox Churches, also a national-educational function, to present an objective picture of the religious history of the nation, to defend against the distortion of individual historical stages, e.g. the glorification of the nation’s decline after White Mountain and also the unfactual pro-Western interpretation of Cyrillo-Methodianism.

The Vladyka’s life dream was not realized. The Czech Orthodox monastery, centre of Eastern spirituality, liturgical life, and national enlightenment, did not begin activity according to the conceptions of Saint Vladyka. The tireless organizer of the eparchy all the more earnestly strove for the deepening of the religious life of the church communities. In care for “the second, earthly… greatest life value… of the two that the Orthodox Church recognizes…” (cf. 1) his enthusiastic coworkers were the nationally conscious clergy of his eparchy.³ Different was the situation in creating conditions for the formation of Orthodox piety. The church communities urgently needed churches. Still an unfulfilled task is the evaluation of the merits of the direct builder of most of them, Father Vsevolod Kolomacký (later Archimandrite Andrej). Let it be only noted here that the Vladyka’s effort that the interiors of churches equipped with iconostases themselves should assist prayerful concentration did not always find understanding among the faithful or among the clergy. Bishop Gorazd openly expresses this in the words: “At first, when after the First World War we were restoring Cyrillo-Methodian Orthodoxy, there was among us a kind of fear, indeed directly a resistance against the iconostasis, because people feared that it would mean a kind of barrier between the priest and the faithful.… The iconostasis in reality does not conceal from us but reveals spiritual realities.… Moreover the iconostasis appears to us as a kind, dear, and bright welcome…”⁴ These words, written in the summer months of the year 1940, make known that even at that time it was not superfluous to explain the significance of the Orthodox appointment of the church interior.

Incomparably more demanding a task than to accustom the participants in the services to the new appointment of the church space was to teach the faithful the Orthodox prayerful expression, the understanding and experiencing of the whole depth and breadth of Eastern divine service. In this most proper field of liturgical activity attempts to plough the first furrow had already earlier been undertaken. For the needs of the Czech Orthodox Society active in Prague (without the granting of public rights of a church by the Austro-Hungarian authorities) translations of liturgical texts appeared in print already in the 1870s. Vladyka Gorazd appreciates these steps in his lecture On the Beginnings of the Orthodox Movement in the Czech Lands with the words: “Great merit for the group of Orthodox Czechs in Prague was gained by Dr. Edvard Grégr, who in 1885 published the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the translation of Josef Rank, in 1888 again the same Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and also of St. Basil, as well as the troparia of the eight tones and of the feasts and some kontakia.”⁵ The Vladyka also had at his disposal other necessary books, for example a bilingual Church Slavonic and Czech Gospel and similarly arranged books of the apostolic Acts and Epistles with the Revelation of St. John,⁶ which were published for Czechs settled in Volhynia who had accepted Orthodoxy.⁷ None of these aids, however, could be used immediately. With the rare pedagogical tact of an experienced psychologist the Vladyka leads the people of his eparchy from the hitherto practice of singing individual stanzas of a continuous “Mass song,” connected only very loosely (or not at all) with the liturgical action, gradually to the perception of the content of the sacred acts and prayerful participation in them. Within a year after the Vladyka’s hierarchical consecration there still appears the second supplemented edition of the Hymnal… for the Needs of the Czechoslovak Church,⁸ with sixty-four multi-stanza songs (they are not exclusively Mass songs; both parts of the state anthem are also included). In the spring of the following year (15 April 1923), however, there already appears a “proposal of several clergy of the Czechoslovak Church” of the order of Evening Devotion, whose structure already exhibits Orthodox structural elements (by the publication of this work the clergy were among other things to be protected from the enormity of binating, i.e. the double celebration of the Holy Eucharist in one day⁹).

In format and overall arrangement there resemble the mentioned little work the booklets (of size 15 by 10.2 cm) Responses to the Orthodox Liturgy in the Pre-Christmas and Christmas Season and Songs for the Liturgy in the Fasting, Paschal, and Pentecost Seasons. All three were printed by “POLITIKA” in Prague. The first two appeared at the expense of the Olomouc community; the publisher of the last is Pavel Vojtovič in Prague. It is to be regretted that on none of them is the year of publication given. For they already represent a transition to the Orthodox order of the Divine Liturgy. The priest here already celebrates all the liturgical prayers, but the responses of the faithful are stanzas of a continuous song developing in rhythmic and rhymed verses the basic thought of the relevant liturgical text. It can reliably be presumed that the brochures under discussion appeared before 1927, when through the care of Prot. Čestmír Kráčmar there is published a two-colour printed booklet The Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, a complete Czech text for the celebrating priest with the deacon. Four years later the church department of the eparchial council of the Orthodox Church in Prague publishes A Handbook of the Sacred Rites of the Orthodox Church, Abridged for Missionary Purposes (Trebnik), Part I, as a further aid for priests. Almost concurrently through the care of the Orthodox spiritual administration in Přerov there is published a lithographed brochure Devotions (1932) with the responses of the faithful for the services from the Trebnik.

Already earlier (1929) there appeared at the expense of the Olomouc singing choir a lithographed book of 328 pages under the title Collection of Orthodox Church Chants¹⁰ containing ten arrangements of the chants of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom for choir, one choral setting each of the Liturgy of Basil and of the Presanctified Gifts, Sunday troparia and chants for twenty-nine festal days. Simple two-part arrangements of the demanding choral compositions of this “Olomouc Collection” were included in a slender brochure, in format similar to the booklet Devotions. The writer of the article, however, knows this aid only from an incomplete torso.

By far not all church communities were capable of forming an erudite singing choir. And moreover Saint Vladyka saw the active involvement of the faithful primarily in all-people’s singing. In order that “our churches and also the family hearths of our brothers and sisters may resound with the singing of church songs, especially of the psalms,”¹¹ there is published in the year 1933 the People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church. Dr. P. Aleš rightly evaluates this publication as the principal work of Bishop Gorazd.¹² His conjecture that the Vladyka received the first impulses toward the popularization of Czech Orthodox singing among the Orthodox in Subcarpathia is very probable, for even Gorazd’s clergy who passed into Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church had obligatorily to complete a study sojourn in an Orthodox Subcarpathian environment.¹³

The People’s Collection is without doubt a creative deed; it does not mechanically take over a given model, but with uncommon considerateness and tact carries out the adaptations necessary to attain the maximum missionary effectiveness of the whole. The book of a total of 760 pages of A5 format is introduced by a preface and a short instruction entitled The Daily Life of a Christian according to the Gospel. There follows further a section of prayers (26 pages), in which besides the daily prayers there is also included a prayerful cycle for the Holy Mysteries (penitential, before and after Holy Communion); further there is prayer for the sick, for travellers, the prayer of the sick and his consolation in the word of God. The section is closed by a prayer for the nation and at the attack of enemies upon the homeland. The calendar part consisting of the order of the holy readings according to the movable yearly cycle, the immovable calendarium, and an alphabetical list of saints occupies a further 42 pages. Even the selection of the names of the saints is missionarily adapted.

On page 81 the chant part of the collection begins. After the unchanging chants from the services and after the order of Sunday Vespers and the Divine Liturgy there are given the texts according to the Octoechos even with the unchanging parts distinguished only by melody through p. 287. Troparia and prokeimena from the “ordinary Menaion” occupy a further 25 pages. In the following 144-page section of services from the festal Menaion attention belongs to the Devotion on the Memorial Day of 6 July, which is a distinctive modification of the rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. To the “Lenten Triodion” belong 122, to the “Flower” Triodion 83 pages. The collection of chants is then closed by 81 pages of rites according to the Trebnik. The missionary adaptations in Vespers consist mainly in the reduction of the number of stichera; in the Liturgy in the joining of the first two antiphons, the omission of the little ektenias, the omission of the verses to Alleluia and of the kontakia, the shortening of the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Catechumens (at the transition into the Liturgy of the Faithful), and the shortening of the petitions of the ektenias.

The People’s Collection brought unification of the liturgical endeavours of the individual clergy, whom the Vladyka names in the preface, as well as the coworkers on the preparation of the collection.¹⁴ The language of the collection is dignified, yet without archaisms. An important textual source were the works of Prot. A. Maltsev.¹⁵ To follow in them the notes written by the saint’s own hand is not only moving but also instructive: with precisely the same mark as the texts whose Czech wording we know from the Collection there are marked there one sticheron and both prokeimena for each Wednesday and Friday of Great Lent. All this therefore was originally to have been included in the Collection. In that too we are obliged to complete the work of Saint Vladyka…

From the whole series of possible treatments of the given theme the writer chose a manner that follows even phenomena at first glance only marginally connected with the Vladyka’s liturgical activity (the monastery, iconostases, etc.), that thereby all the more the length and beautiful steepness of the path traversed may stand out, that it may be made clear what remained undone, and that it may be emphasized what liturgical activity was for the Vladyka: one of a series of equal instruments for the integral formation of the faithful into the likeness of Christ, for the cultivation of both the greatest life values—the heavenly (namely faith), which is a reflection of Christ’s divine nature, an expression of human longing for belonging with Him, and the earthly (namely love of nation and homeland), through which we become branches¹⁶ of the vine whose stem is Christ, the vine of consecrated Christian humanity.

Notes, references:

Orthodox Catechism, Prague–Hlinsko 1940, p. 112, note XI. (Back to text)
People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church, Hlinsko 1933, p. 714. (Back to text)
Of one of them we read in the manuscript Memorial Book of the Religious Community of the Czechoslovak Church of the Orthodox Orientation for Třebíč and Vicinity in an entry from 1919: “… Josef Leixner … the only one of the priests in western Moravia remembered that he is a son of Czech parents … and that it is his sacred duty to place himself in the service of the nation …” (p. 6). (Back to text)
Gorazd, bishop, Guide to the Cathedral Church of Saint Gorazd in Olomouc, Olomouc 1987, p. 14. (Back to text)
Manuscript of the lecture, p. 21, in the archive of the office of the EROB, made accessible by the kindness of Dir. Off. ThDr. Pavel Aleš. (Back to text)

Novyj zavět … Vypusk I: Sv. Jevangelie, S.-Peterburg Nový zákon … Svazek I. Sv. evangelium, Petrohrad 1892 (New edition—reprint—Thessaloniki, 1994)

Ibid., Vypusk II, Dějanija …, S.-Peterburg Ibid., Svazek II: Skutkové …, Petrohrad 1897 (New edition—reprint—Thessaloniki, 1994)

(Back to text)

Loc. cit. (volume I), p. III: “…pečatájetsja dlja našich bratěv Čechov, nedavno pereselivšichsja k nam na jug i priňavšich pravoslavije …” (Back to text)
Hymnal, i.e. a Collection of Songs, Prayers and Instructions from Holy Scripture for the Needs of the Czechoslovak Church, 2nd supplemented edition, Uherský Brod, 1922–9). (Back to text)
Evening Devotion (Vespers), Olomouc 1923, second page of the cover. (Back to text)
Format of the Collection 20 by 25 cm. (Back to text)
People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church, Prague–Hlinsko 1933, p. 7. (Back to text)
Bishop Gorazd / From His Works (compiled by ThDr. Pavel Aleš), Prague–Přerov 1988, p. 19. (Back to text)
Declaration of Fr. Jaroslav Čech (formerly Deutsch) at a gathering of clergy in Olomouc. (Back to text)
Loc. cit., p. 7; let us gratefully recall them also now: Fr. Vladimír Gruzín, Fr. Theodor Perútka, Fr. Vít Abrahám, Fr. A. Jiří Novák, Fr. Bohumír Axmann-Aleš and Dr. B. J. Mayer; among the pioneering translators let us mention J. Žídek and Fr. Josef Neruda (Archimandrite Sava); the named Josef Neruda also translated and hectographically multiplied Part I of the book of Dr. Lazar Mirković Orthodox Liturgics or the Science of the Divine Service of the Orthodox Eastern Church. (Back to text)
Maltsev A. Th.Mr.:

Fasten- und Blumen-Triodion nebst der Sonntagsl. Postnaja i cvetnaja Triodi s voskresnymi pesnopenijami Berlin, 1899

Menologion der Orthodox-katholischen Kirche des… Mesaceslov pravoslavnoj kafoličeskoj vostočnoj cerkvi Berlin, 1900

(Back to text)

Cf. John 15:5 (Back to text)

— Prot. ThDr. Miroslav Mužík († 2007) / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

The Pastoral Work of Our Saint⌗

Czech original: Pastýřská činnost našeho světce

Saint Vladyka Gorazd became a truly worthy bearer of the name Gorazd, which we know from the time of the Great Moravian Church—it belonged to the foremost disciple of Saint Methodius, his designated successor on the archiepiscopal throne.

Vladyka Gorazd developed his own pastoral work especially after he was consecrated bishop for the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church. He could of course draw on the rich experience he had gained both as a cleric in the Roman Catholic pastoral administration and, above all, as chaplain of the psychiatric hospital in Kroměříž. Contact with mentally afflicted patients worked upon his sensitive soul, open to the suffering of his neighbours. This compelled him constantly to seek for them new and better forms of spiritual care. The whole existence of our salvation is in fact a struggle for the healing of sick human nature, wounded by sin. It is not a matter—said with Saint Seraphim of Sarov—of doing good for “good in general,” but of doing good in the name of Christ and for Christ. That is goodness in its essence, overcoming empty moralism.

In Saint Vladyka we will not find theorizing about the essence of pastoral care. He values living practice more, and his own life is a flaming torch of pastorship, drawing others to follow. My contribution, of course, can no longer rest on personal experience—memories. I was too small to have any notion of it at all, but as a mischievous little boy I was personally moved and struck by the Vladyka’s immense patience and kindness. When soon afterward he was tortured and executed—by then I was already going to school—I felt great regret that I had shown myself before him from that unbecoming boyish side, and to this day I feel that regret within me. But on the other hand—already in that relationship of his toward me—it was an image of deep, patient pastorship that he conversed with me at all when visiting our home.

The Organization of Pastoral Care⌗

If I seek the first traces in the life of the holy bishop that suggest something about his pastorship, I become aware of his interest in people. He wanted to know about everything and, above all, about everyone. A good shepherd knows his sheep by name. He does not wait until they come—as a nameless crowd—to church, so that he may “serve” them pastorally. Completely foreign to the Vladyka was the notion, nowadays more frequently repeated among us, of “satisfying the religious needs of the faithful.” In pastorship that is not what it is about. It is about something deeper. The shepherd must know perfectly the problems of his spiritual children; above all he must know them personally. Vladyka Gorazd insisted that in every pastoral district there be card indexes of the members. The objection that this was then a so-called “official” necessity, because every cleric was at the same time a state official and the pastoral administration issued documents of general civil legal validity concerning church acts performed—baptisms, weddings, and funerals—may be admitted, but it is not the explanation. Care cannot do without records, for example even with a physician, and the spiritual shepherd is a spiritual physician. God knows His sheep by name and knows everything about them. A good shepherd too must strive for comprehensive knowledge; he has no right to leave anyone out. He has no right to build on personal sympathies; rather we might say the opposite—he should devote himself more to those who are not personally so sympathetic to him and who ignore his care. To rely on memory is treacherous and deceptive; moreover, to keep the things of pastoral experience and care only in memory is worthless for the shepherd’s successor, who must then begin all over again.

The Pastoral Conversation and Immediate Help⌗

According to the testimony of all eyewitnesses, Vladyka Gorazd had the gift of communicating with everyone. He was able to find a way to each person. Perhaps experience from the psychiatric workplace helped him, but evidently he also had to struggle so that he might open himself to all, begin a conversation, penetrate into the soul and the problem of his partner, and gently lead him. In a spiritual conversation it is not a matter of some pre-programmed calculation—“to catch” someone at any cost. Such a relationship is immediately seen through by the partner and evokes wariness and closedness in his soul. The Lord Jesus Christ never approached people in this utilitarian way; rather, a truly warm human interest governed His action and conversation. The example of the conversation with the Samaritan woman or with the nocturnal guest Nicodemus are sufficient examples of this. In all cases, however, the Saviour’s conversation with people issued in fundamental questions about the Kingdom of God and its righteousness. The conversations of Saint Vladyka too always directed from earthly cares toward the problems of man’s salvation.

Beautiful examples of how quickly the Vladyka responded to every request are given by all who knew him. I myself recall the accounts of the parishioners of Řimice, among whom the Vladyka lived in almost daily intensive contact for several years (1934–1942; true, with the exception of the last years, when he was hiding in various places). Some even after years complained that the Vladyka was too—even prodigally—generous, of which unscrupulous, calculating, and bad people took advantage. But this helplessness of his toward petitioners appears to us today, with distance, as a childishly guileless expression of his personality, of a pure heart, sensitive and incapable of refusing help—the heart of a saint. It is possible that here the Vladyka cannot be so consistently imitated, and probably such imitation in our case would not ring pure and sincere, but forced and Pharisaical. Yet this trait of pastoral care—is it not an essential trait of the shepherd who sacrifices himself for his sheep, precisely for the one who needs him in the given concrete moment…?

Visits to the Families of Orthodox Faithful and of Those of Other Confessions⌗

Vladyka Gorazd, in his endeavour to know everyone thoroughly, systematically visited the faithful—and all the faithful. He did not select a circle of his friends; for him all without distinction were friends. There come to mind the recollections of old Mrs. Krampolová in Vilémov near Litovel (she died sometime in the 1960s). She related that it was the very first time that someone “of significance” had visited their dwelling. Those people did not even have wooden floors, only earthen ones, and everywhere one saw only deep poverty. There were more such families in Vilémov and elsewhere. All remembered the Vladyka’s visits with immense emotion. They were not visits of the kind against which St. James warns—the devouring of widows’ houses—but visits of a true shepherd, a father who comforted, encouraged, advised, guided, and also gave. Such activity is the core of genuine pastorship. After all, it was above all in order to be closer to the people of the Church that the Vladyka moved from Prague to Moravia and by his activity inaugurated a new type of hierarchical missionary work. This was not a hierarch of splendid vestments, separated from the people by a circle of servers in the church and the more separated from them in public, but a true kind father and shepherd, for whom every family formed the space of his family and of his love.

Visits to the Sick⌗

In the first volumes of the journal Za pravdou there is printed a remarkable document about how the bishop himself visits a typhus patient in hospital. True, the article is aimed a little critically; it depicts conditions in the health-care establishments of that time, in which Catholic religious sisters predominated, sometimes harshly refusing contact with “those of other confessions,” but at the same time it is an outstanding testimony to the Vladyka’s immediate pastoral response to the needs of a suffering person. Fr. Jaroslav Šuvarský in his meritorious book on Bishop Gorazd of 1979 gathered extensive material on the Vladyka’s (then still Pavlík’s) work in the psychiatric hospital in Kroměříž, to which he devoted a full fifteen years of his life caring for the suffering.

Connected with this essential trait of pastoral work is also the care, unfortunately neglected today, that Orthodox Christian faithful should always find in their clergy close and accessible helpers in their sufferings, especially in extreme situations when death comes and the suffering person is preparing to leave this life and to pass into the spiritual world. Here, according to the example of our saint, care for spiritual consolation, confession, and the administration of the holy Mysteries both of the Body and Blood of Christ and of the anointing of the sick with oil is a primary duty of the clergy ordained for this.

The Teaching of Religion⌗

For a young Church not yet properly organized, which was still groping in the fundamental matters of its liturgical and spiritual being, which had an extensive, fragmented diaspora, the teaching of religion at all levels at which it was then possible was a question of being or non-being. It was necessary to take hold of every centre, every school where it was at all physically possible, and to introduce regular instruction of children in religion. The majority Catholic Church and other churches had a well-built organization of religious instruction still from Austro-Hungarian times. Our Church had yet to build this system, which required great energy and time. At the beginning of its existence in the 1920s the Church encountered considerable problems in this regard. Bishop Gorazd, while still administrator of Moravia-Silesia (in the Czechoslovak Church), devoted himself to this building with all his energy and zeal, as the first volumes of the journals Za pravdou attest. Upon the independence of the Orthodox orientation the work continued, and there was added to it the further necessity of integrating into Czech Orthodox religious instruction also the children of Russian refugees. Their clergy did not have the right to teach in public schools here, so that for example in Prague it required Sisyphean effort to include pupils of various age categories in regular instruction. At the beginning of the 1930s the then seminarians gathered around the Vladyka’s table helped with the teaching, and the Vladyka himself, as contemporaries recorded, did not hesitate to go and teach in the schools as well, so that instruction might not be neglected, and he did not consider this work of his unworthy of his episcopal dignity. Even amid his immense busyness he simply would not allow that children gathered from all corners of Prague should remain without religious instruction, even if there were only a small group of them. Parents who for worldly reasons withdrew their children from the then-compulsory attendance at religion he reproached privately and publicly for their educationally inconsistent and religiously superficial attitude. How great was the Vladyka’s concern for this area of pastoral care is attested by the curricula for the teaching of Orthodox religion issued by him in the 1930s, which our Church used even after liberation from 1945, and on the basis of which similar curricula were later drawn up in 1968, when religion in the schools was temporarily opened without hindrance to the children of those parents who enrolled them for religion in the schools. There is no need to recall how necessary this pastoral-pedagogical work is today in the new, entirely free conditions.

Correspondence Pastoral Care and the Significance of the Church Press in the Pastoral-Missionary Work of the Church⌗

Saint Vladyka, according to the recollections of contemporaries and documented writings, conducted tireless correspondence with people near and far. He greeted them at least with short notes on the occasions of birthdays, name days, anniversaries; he comforted, admonished, and encouraged. This daily correspondence was an expression of his love for people and care for them, not merely some form of social convention. In the situation of a minority Church living in an extensive diaspora this pastoral contact was a necessity. The Vladyka knew that people’s being well informed is a prerequisite for awakening their interest in the matter, and here it was a matter of salvation—of that most precious value which a person can attain by faith.

Similarly Saint Bishop Gorazd cared for the spiritual flock entrusted to him through the church press. He did not allow the journal Za pravdou to cease appearing; it was later replaced by the Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy, which came out until the fateful events of 1942. In them there is scarcely an issue in which there was not an article by the Vladyka, often of a fundamental character, a biblical reflection, a historical study, or a note, or only a short item of news, as the case might be a brief notice. His co-workers testify that he required that every cleric write an article for the church press at least from time to time and that the clergy grow accustomed to this work as something self-evident and indispensable. The motto that the church periodical belongs in every Orthodox family—a slogan still current—is his motto. For from families the influence of the church press reaches also into wider circles, and often a good and interesting article addresses even those who do not belong to the Orthodox Church or have no knowledge of it or of religious values at all. The articles of Saint Vladyka still—to this day—work pastorally in the souls of readers!

* * *

The points of pastoral work of Saint Bishop Gorazd outlined here by no means exhaust the full breadth of his missionary-pastoral conception. One could treat separately his lasting care for the spiritual guidance of youth, study how he made missionary-pastoral use of preaching, upon which—as the carefully prepared drafts of his sermons attest—he laid great emphasis, or separately analyse his originally conceived personal teaching of church congregational singing as a new type of missionary-pastoral work. From everything briefly touched upon here it follows that Saint Bishop Gorazd was a great pastoral and missionary personality, who calls for the following of his example and the development of his initiatives.

— Prot. Pavel Aleš / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Music and Song in the Life and Work of St. Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Hudba a zpěv v životě a díle sv. Gorazda

Whoever arrives in Hrubá Vrbka succumbs to a peculiar impression. The countryside works upon one—not rich in fertility, yet shining with the smile of fields, meadows, and vineyards, with the winding of paths overgrown with leafy trees. A similar smile appears on a person’s face, and above all in the heart, with a mood ranging from inward joy to elegiac meditation. As if you wished to share your impression, as if your inward reflection were meant to come forth, to take on real form, a directly tangible shape of song…

Hrubá Vrbka is renowned for songs, singing, and its characteristic music—and it was so in the past as well. Thus its impressive folk art was also mirrored in the heart of a quiet but courageous boy, that there it might cause the most beautiful flowers of love for his Creator and for His children—people here on earth—to bloom. Thus it helped to forge a brave heart, and at the same time a heart good above all else—the heart of a saint…

In the life of every person art has its place—however it may act upon him. All the greater is the share of art for the believing Christian. In the time when Matěj Pavlík was born, music sounded in the house of God throughout the whole year. What glorious figured Masses there were at Eastertide, how the pastorales rang out at Christmastide, when the faithful prayed at the crib of Christ. Something else too worked powerfully upon the child’s receptive soul: devout pilgrimages, processions. He himself recalls how gladly he took part in them with his parents and how the popular, devout singing strengthened bodies wearied by the pilgrimage. And all the more when they reached the goal of the journey! How mightily the organ sounded to meet them and set ringing in the heart the warmest, most powerful tones of admiring love for God and His saints. He did not then suspect that he himself would one day be joined to them as a bearer of the martyr’s palm…

And what of the return journey! Then already secular strains of folk song rang out as well, that hearts might be gladdened. We may assert with certainty that the soul of the receptive boy was enchanted by the music of the church year just as much as by the plaintive and merry melodies of the songs of Slovácko.

Later, at the seminary in Kroměříž, the student Matěj Pavlík received careful musical education in the form of instruction in church singing and music. The period of his voice change, however, apparently proceeded stormily—in the fourth year he could not sing at all, and in the fifth he chose shorthand instead of singing. Evidently the situation improved, however, for already in the first year of study at the theological faculty in Olomouc we learn from a letter of the seminarian Josef Schimek, who was studying in Rome and had apparently become friends with Matěj Pavlík, that young Pavlík was making progress in singing, and, convinced of his musical talent, recommended that he attempt composition.¹ Especially in the last year of study at the faculty he devoted himself diligently to music and was even conductor-choirmaster of the singing choir. On 5 July 1902 Matěj Pavlík was ordained a priest, and on 13 July the newly ordained celebrated in the festively decorated church in Kuželov, to which the parish of Hrubá Vrbka belonged, his first holy Mass. In the paternal home there then unfolded at the feast joyful entertainment, at which folk songs sounded with music that also accompanied the national dances.

In his first priestly posting in Silesian Karlovice the new cleric diligently took interest in folk songs. Perhaps this was helped by the posting, known also from the life and work of Leoš Janáček [The composer Leoš Janáček had, moreover, a warm relationship also with Horňácko, where he listened to the fiddlers—Trn of Velká and Babica of Vrbovce. Vladyka Gorazd admired Janáček; Janáček’s compositions have been preserved in Bishop Gorazd’s musical archive as well (ed. note)] as one of the centres of Silesian folklore: Matěj Pavlík diligently wrote down the texts and melodies of folk songs (Javorník, Javorník; Počúvaj, počúvaj, co to v zemi hučí), and for some songs he also composed musical accompaniment. Certainly this activity, like all the activity of Matěj Pavlík and later of Bishop Gorazd, was motivated by something essential. In this case, on the one hand by love of music and song, and certainly also by the endeavour to preserve and revive the beauty of folk songs and thus contribute to awakening work for the nation in a mixed, sometimes strongly German environment. That Matěj Pavlík was not, however, fanatically anti-German is attested by an entry recorded in the German chronicle in Neplachovice, to which today by parish affiliation belongs another of his postings—Brumovice—where on the contrary he recorded 85 songs to German spiritual texts.² In Brumovice too M. Pavlík devoted himself to music. In Neplachovice, the birthplace of the significant Silesian pioneer of folk music and song, Janáček’s teacher Pavel Křížkovský, the young priest even sang at concerts as soloist operatic arias by B. Smetana. Whoever has himself ever sung must admit that to sing the works of the creator of Czech national opera can truly be done only by one who knows how to sing well. For the twentieth anniversary of Křížkovský’s death in 1905, M. Pavlík sang as soloist of the choir at a concert in Opava. The concert had great success. The young cleric continued thereafter collecting folk songs and published them in the journal Nový život.

The chief meaning of his public activity was the winning of the sympathies of the popular strata in the parishes where he served, and he succeeded in this perfectly.

The years in the life of the enthusiastic priest—awakener and sincere friend of the believing souls entrusted to his care—passed swiftly in diligent work. A further milestone in his activity is his appointment as chaplain at the provincial therapeutic institute—in fact the psychiatric hospital in Kroměříž—with definitive effect from 1 January 1908. Here his philanthropic endeavours could fully unfold, for he provided care to the most wretched. Spiritual care for him of course was not limited to religious acts in the church. His chief activity outside the temple was personal contact with the patients—perfect pastoral care, arising from the special conditions given by the illness of his charges. Above all he himself literally cared for the sick in constant personal contact, taught them useful activities, and educated them (especially the children) toward employment by work accessible to them, conditioned again by accessible education. Aesthetic activity helped toward this as well. His love of song and music could now show itself also as a means of educational enlightenment. For these reasons he created in the institute an ensemble from its employees and inmates, to whom Kroměříž artists also joined. The first undertaking was a Christmas play with musical accompaniment, which had great success. M. Pavlík was charged by the director of the institute, Dr. Návrat, with the direction of singing and music and with arranging cultural programmes in the hospital. Thus under Pavlík’s leadership a musical and theatrical circle was born there.

It must be recalled that this outstanding musician and educational-enlightenment worker was interested not only in the musical arts. Already in his secondary-school years he was drawn to literature not only Czech but also world literature, and not only the literature of the past but also of the present. The works of classical authors too Matěj Pavlík studied at that time—Homer, Xenophon, Demosthenes—in the original.

His relationship to the visual arts was very active—he acknowledged, of course, only works that were eloquent and communicative for man, not merely formal. From 1913 he was a contributing member of the Association of Moravian Visual Artists—moreover the well-known painter of Slovácko Cyril Mandel was his close relative. Pavlík’s relationship to good, noble theatre directed toward the development of the personality was likewise thoroughly positive. If we consider the combination of all these artistic kinds, then the success of Pavlík’s aesthetically educational and enlightening work in the Kroměříž sanatorium becomes clear to us.

Irresistibly the years of M. Pavlík’s life flowed on… After the First World War, which for him meant years of spiritual and Samaritan care for wounded soldiers, there came the time of liberation, which the enthusiastic patriot welcomed with his whole heart and in which complex religious questions for our nations were being resolved. That from the Catholic priest Matěj Pavlík, a deeply devout Christian and cleric, there came to be the Orthodox Bishop Gorazd was certainly preceded by a decision neither easy nor simple. The path of this deciding is lined with disillusionment at the anti-popular, historically unprogressive, and pastorally formal Catholicism among us, which then condemned man to “the yoke of a foreign tongue”—as the later Vladyka expressed it in the song to Sts. Cyril and Methodius. It is also bordered, however, by the condemnation of doctrinal radicalism in the newly arisen national Czechoslovak Church. Finally there contributed to it the lack of understanding of our then state officials for the Orthodox idea. It means, of course, also a secure anchoring in holy Orthodoxy.

And in the work for it on the Czech field of God there fully aids Bishop Gorazd, consecrated in Serbian Belgrade on 25 September 1921, his love of song and music. And not only love, but above all deep knowledge.

The simple believing person among us was accustomed to the sound of the organ. The organ led his voice at the divine services; the organ became a virtuoso instrument at figured Masses and also sounded as a suitable concert insert, solo or accompanying, at popular Masses—“played,” as they used to say. That was certainly one reason why the church hymnal with liturgical texts issued by Bishop Gorazd in 1924 was sung to the accompaniment of a harmonium, which replaced the accompaniment of the organ. Some parishes retained the harmonium even later—indeed directly in the church of St. Procopius of Sázava in Štěpánov it was left with the permission of Bishop Dositej, and upon it were accompanied, for example, Dvořák’s Biblical Songs, which my mother sang there…

A second reason was the difficulty of forming singing choirs in the parishes at once—even though the tradition of choral singing among us was great and its then level high.

From the year mentioned the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was served without the little ecteniae and the ectenia for the catechumens. The Liturgy was hectographed from typescript.

For Bishop Gorazd, whom the faithful addressed as Vladyka, there began diligent personal work consisting in lecture activity about Orthodoxy and above all in the teaching of Orthodox church singing. It was certainly not easy to travel around the parishes—the sole but joyful reward was the devout voices sounding through the church, Orthodoxy’s songs raising them toward heaven.

In the parishes choirs are also formed—first in Olomouc, Chudobín, and Štěpánov. Thus the Vladyka helps to raise the quality of church singing, for he is aware that congregational singing and the singing of the church choir must go hand in hand—the first is a necessity, the second elevates the inner being of the believer…

In 1925 the glorious songs of Christ’s Resurrection sounded for the first time in Olomouc. Bishop Gorazd translated their texts from Church Slavonic and especially arranged their musical side. Russian melodies became his model; some parts he composed himself. The response to the Paschal services was magnificent—their immediacy, penetrating the human inward being, and their joyful festive mood of love for the risen God and for people won over every believer—whether Orthodox or of another confession. Bishop Gorazd thus laid in our nation the true foundation of what church musical and singing art expresses: man’s warm, immediate relationship to God, and what is so necessary and at the same time ordinary in the Orthodox Church, where without singing there is in essence no rite.

It was not, of course, simple, and he worked truly comprehensively—from missionary visits to the arranging of conferences for clergy. Thus for example in 1926 at the conference in Štěpánov for clergy and choirmasters, where those present were thoroughly acquainted with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the rite of the panikhida, he teaches them to sing the prokeimena.

Firmly the organization of Orthodox parishes in Bohemia and Moravia was being welded together. Bishop Gorazd travelled also to Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus—as if by his journeys there he were foreshadowing the common growth of all church communities into future autocephaly.

New co-workers and clergy also increase. In 1927 there is issued the Church Hymnal and Instruction on the Divine Liturgy. Immediately preceding is the publication of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, which was prepared by the cleric Father Čestmír Kráčmar. By the publication of the Liturgy one of the chief pillars of the doctrinal edifice of the Orthodox Church among us was completed. It is also proof that the believing people had anchored themselves in Orthodoxy and wholly professed it. If we reflect today on this time and on what was accomplished in it for Orthodoxy in our nation, we must stand with admiration in our hearts.

At roughly the same time there appear Czech Liturgical Chants of the East (in notation) by Prof. K. Fiala, a work significant for propaganda and education, and the Memorial Booklet of the Singing Choir in Olomouc, which among other things shows how to cultivate spiritual singing in church communities. The Olomouc church choir was altogether very active at that time: a year later it still issues scores and parts for the panikhida, Sunday troparia and prokeimena and for the feast of Master Jan Hus, and parts for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Stanković and by P. I. Tchaikovsky.

Truly joyfully could Bishop Gorazd celebrate on 26 May 1929 the fiftieth year of his life, rejoicing in the richly blooming flowers he had planted on God’s field… In the year of the Vladyka’s fiftieth birthday the first fascicle of Gorazd’s collection is prepared for publication. It is in notation and bears the title Collection of Orthodox Church Chants.

In 1933 there appears the People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church. The preface to it was written “In Prague on the day of the Martyr Václav in the year of the Lord 1933” by Gorazd, Orthodox Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia. The work is a further pillar of the Orthodox church edifice among us. Nevertheless its creator did not consider it perfect—in the preface he says: “I regard this collection as a mere provisional aid.” It was later to be supplemented by the publication of a more perfect hymnal. Let us look, however, at the Collection with today’s eyes—with a sixty-year distance.

The book of 759 pages has three parts: a prayer part, a calendar part, and a singing part (the collection of chants proper). The prayer part is preceded by a preface and The Daily Life of the Christian according to the Gospel—to this day the highest valid principles of an active Christian. After the prayer and calendar parts follows the collection of chants proper. It is formed by an introductory part containing the melodies of the most important prayers. There follows the Evening Service and the tones for it, and after that the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and Basil the Great—first the order, then the tones. To the services and observances is attached a List of Liturgical Chants Which It Is Fitting to Learn by Heart and a List of Songs. Taken as the basis is the Octoechos (Oktoechos), common in the Eastern Church already in the time of the holy Fathers. The problem of arrangement into eight liturgical tones while at the same time striving to popularize the liturgical chants so that they might be sung both by temple choirs and without difficulty by simple believers, and which (as is said in the preface) “could easily take root among us,” was of course considerable. Bishop Gorazd therefore decided for the simpler Russian melodies, which he used in the first, third, and fourth troparion tones, in seven prokeimenon tones (apart from the fifth), and the sixth sticheron tone (for troparia). The rest he composed himself for the simplicity of the singing. A further problem was in the translation of the texts from Church Slavonic into Czech—somewhere (also for the sake of the melody) he was compelled to leave the original expression and Czechify it (e.g. “Hospodi pomiluj” instead of “Pane smiluj se”). There remained finally the harmonization, solved by two-part or three-part writing, whereby the first two voices are led predominantly in thirds, so that the melody is somewhere led by the second voice. The harmonization is simple—Bishop Gorazd calls it “consciously primitive”—yet very effective. Some songs Bishop Gorazd also underlaid with a new text—among all let us mention the Cyrillo-Methodian song “Bože, co’s ráčil před tisíci roky” (“O God, what Thou didst deign a thousand years ago”), whose words typically express the Orthodox Christian’s love for the holy Enlighteners, admiration for their affliction-filled life, and the legacy of following them.

From today’s evaluative standpoint we must admit that there has not yet been issued in our Church a book of such pastoral and propagandistic significance and at the same time so practically serving its purpose. The legacy to create—as its creator wished—a more complete hymnal is entrusted to us. Certainly, however, we shall proceed in this according to the model of Gorazd’s collection… (The second edition of this significant work appeared with minor adjustments in September 1951.) Gorazd’s collection thus rightly became a further pillar of the doctrinal edifice of Czech Orthodoxy. The last was Gorazd’s Czech Orthodox Catechism of 1940, from the hardest times.

Bishop Gorazd was also an untiring propagator of Orthodox church singing. As a pioneering act he designated the introduction of the teaching of Orthodox singing at the Prague Conservatory, where from the beginning of the 1930s it was taught by Prof. Protoiereus Milivoj Crvčanin. On 19 June 1936 the Conservatory arranged in the fully occupied Dvořák Hall an evening of Orthodox vocal music. The evening was opened by Bishop Gorazd with a lecture in which he acquainted those present with the essence of Orthodox singing, arising from the mysticism of the deep faith of the simple person and issuing in the richness of the creative art of the great personalities of the Orthodox sphere. He likewise pointed to the Slavic mutuality which Orthodoxy affords—a circumstance so important at that time. Then he turned directly to the listeners of the Conservatory with an appeal that they devote themselves to the study of Orthodox singing and to composition on Orthodox church texts. Of all those who heeded Gorazd’s appeal let us name Prof. Tomáš Jirák, choirmaster of the Cathedral Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, also a successful composer of Orthodox church chants.

We have come to know Matěj Pavlík and later Bishop Gorazd as a singer, musician, music theorist, and propagator of Orthodox church singing. What is to be said of Gorazd the composer? Let us notice one of his compositions, the Paschal chant for mixed choir “Having Beheld the Resurrection of Christ.”

In the first part all the choral voices are led in unison. As if they created the impression of the mighty firmness of faith and at the same time of Paschal joy. Effective is the fugal unfolding of the voices, when the individual voices again express a festively joyful mood and deep devotion into the grace of God: “For Thou art our God, O Saviour; besides Thee we have none other; Thy name, Thy name we invoke”—it sounds in a broad adagio. The composition ends with a jubilant summons in alla breve: “Come, all ye faithful, alleluia, let us worship the holy Resurrection of Christ, for from the Cross joy has come to the whole world.”

Joy and the certainty of redemption radiate directly from the composition, just as also from the whole life and heroic death of Gorazd.

At the end his own words: “How we perform the holy rites, how at them with one mouth and heart we sing the sacred texts until the vault of heaven shakes, how we pray and invoke the Lord—and how unconquerable also is our national, state, and Slavic consciousness.”

May the words of the holy martyr illuminate our future path as well…

Notes⌗

Cf.: Šuvarský, J.: Biskup Gorazd. Prague 1979, p. 29.
Cf.: Šuvarský, J.: L.c., p. 49.

— Dr. Čestmír Kráčmar / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Vladyka Gorazd the Preacher⌗

Czech original: Vladyka Gorazd kazatel

Even in the mirror of memory that grows ever more clouded, more than one picture from childhood and the age of adolescence rises before me. It was the nineteen-thirties, when alongside secular school instruction I was also absorbing the foundations of religion, supported by practical participation in the divine services in the role of an altar server.

This horizon expanded for me especially after the year 1934, when the eparchial office of Gorazd’s Czech and Moravian-Silesian eparchy moved from Prague into my native village. For the first time I also came to know its hierarch. He did not serve regularly in Řimice, because he travelled also to other church communities, yet even those divine services which he celebrated there were a festive act. His pleasing chant, the dignity and nobility of his whole person, joined with exemplary simplicity, and his universal popularity, wrought in the hearts of the faithful a festive experience. I remember very vividly that everything which Vladyka Gorazd emphasized and laid upon our hearts when rehearsing the liturgical chants, he then showed practically when serving. Especially his reading of the Gospel was also an aesthetic experience.

And after the Gospel there followed the sermon. Almost regularly it was based on the reading of the corresponding Gospel pericope. Sometimes also on significant verses of the Epistle—thus always on Holy Scripture. Vladyka Gorazd preached above all always simply. This is proved by his many sermons, which even today we can read in the book Bishop Gorazd – From His Works; Prague, 1988. As an episcopos and an erudite theologian he could in his addresses have given preference to doctrinal, historical, and philosophical tenets; he could also have used the liturgical assembly of the faithful to confirm them in Orthodox doctrine, in the historical legitimacy of Orthodoxy among us, in the interpretation of Scripture. Yes, all this Bishop Gorazd did in overflowing measure in his numerous lectures outside the church, in his regular articles, and in his book publications. Yet his sermons were different. It was evident that these were words spoken to the faithful face to face, eye to eye, from memory. Here the preacher also notes the concentration and the involuntary reaction of the hearers; his sermons are an extraordinary opportunity to say in simple words, which everyone necessarily understands, everything absolutely persuasively and impressively. His hearers, especially in the rural church communities, were simple people, to whom the preacher’s words had to be close and intelligible. Different was the situation at lectures outside the church, which were ordinarily thematic, intended for a certain circle of interested persons, and could therefore be more demanding in content.

It must be recalled that in the twenties and thirties, when Bishop Gorazd was restoring Orthodoxy among us, it was necessary to explain thoroughly to the faithful above all the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, in which all our faithful had been brought up. Therefore even his numerous addresses were directed to this theme. Also the frequent emphasis on the historical roots of Cyrillo-Methodian Orthodoxy among us was indispensable. The fact of the Christianization of our lands from the Byzantine East Bishop Gorazd emphasized on every suitable occasion, thus also in sermons, especially on the feasts of the Slavic saints.

In clarifying Slavic Cyrillo-Methodianism to the faithful in addresses and in articles, Vladyka Gorazd already saw his duty in the time of his activity in the Roman Catholic Church. Together with the national and the social question this was his dominating theme, with which he acquainted his hearers and readers. All his later lectures and especially his books The Life of Ss. Cyril and Methodius and Their Relation to Rome and to Constantinople and the Catechism clearly prove this.

If we read perhaps any sermon of Bishop Gorazd, we always find in it a twofold orientation: exegetical-historical and contemporary. That means that the Vladyka here expounds the corresponding text of Scripture in its original meaning, which is important especially, for example, with Christ’s parables, and then in a deeper analysis points to its transferred and present meaning and draws from it instructive conclusions for the faithful of today. This procedure is in no way new or peculiar, but it is very well intelligible for everyone. And this regard is in sermons certainly very desirable. It must be recommended even today to all our clergy. It is necessary, however, that every preacher realize that such a procedure, though long since established, requires ever new and new immersions into the texts of Scripture and deep meditation upon them, so that they may always mean a timely contribution and accent the problem that it is precisely necessary to bring to the fore.

As regards content and form, one must notice in the Vladyka’s addresses their dense brevity, which allows the temporal length of the sermon to be set at a duration acceptable to every hearer. From Bishop Gorazd’s direct co-workers I learned that a sermon lasting ten to fifteen minutes, if carefully prepared, can communicate everything to the faithful. From my own lifelong practice I can only recommend this maxim to all clergy. What the preacher cannot say in this time, he will not say even in a longer time.

Many contemporaries of Bishop Gorazd, especially members of the Protestant churches, often declared that Orthodoxy places too great an emphasis on the ostentatious ceremonial of the divine services and belittles the spoken word. Allegedly it never had outstanding preachers. This assertion, however, does not stand. Of course, the centre of the Holy Liturgy among us is the Holy Eucharist. But that does not mean that the reading of Holy Scripture and its exposition in the sermon is neglected. Bishop Gorazd himself always led his clergy to devote due attention to preaching at the divine services, always to prepare carefully for it, to deliver it from memory, and to do it regularly. Even at funerals the word of the clergyman is always to be a full consolation and is not to be limited only to ordinary conventional words of condolence. Never also may the preacher seek to use his eventual gift for the popularity of his own person and be self-pleasing. All this Vladyka Gorazd often recalled to his pupils.

And all of us, the clergy of today’s Orthodox Church, belong to Gorazd’s pupils. For us too, therefore, it holds that even after so many years we are to heed all his good counsels and admonitions, just as we heed the legacy of all the teachers of the Church, the martyrs, and the saints.

— Prot. Pavel O. Axman

From the collection “Shepherd and Martyr” (Olomouc 1992–1995) (Internet publication September 2013)

The Apostle⌗

Czech original: Apoštol

In June 1924 Brother Bishop Gorazd served the then Czechoslovak Liturgy in Hrotovice. After it he administered confirmation to the youth. To those confirmed he gave as a remembrance the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I served as acolyte at these divine services. After them I was received by the bishop as a seminarian. At the end of September 1924 Bishop Gorazd dispatched us from Olomouc to Sremski Karlovci.

There were quite a number of Czech seminarians in Serbia. They were Gorazd’s hope, which unfortunately was not always fulfilled. Here in Serbia we met with the Vladyka several times, lastly at the funeral of Patriarch Dimitrije in 1930.

I came to know the Vladyka more closely only during my two-year stay in Prague. He became for me a model of a diligent worker and an undaunted fighter for renewed Czech Orthodoxy. His daily regimen was modest and simple. He rose early, prayed together with us seminarians, breakfasted, and then went out for a walk. From 8 to 12 o’clock he worked diligently in his office, exactly according to the programme which he wrote for himself for each day. He handled the official correspondence of the chairman of the eparchial council, his personal correspondence, received visitors, and paid visits to state offices. He was bishop and official in one person.

We most looked forward to dinner with the Vladyka. At it he acquainted us with his life; he told us of his studies, of his work in the pastoral administration in the original Orthodox Czechoslovak Church and finally in the Orthodox Church. How many struggles he underwent, how many difficulties stood in his path. All the systematic results which he achieved for the Church were conditioned by strenuous work, study, journeys through Europe. Without influential friends in political or official positions—rather against powerful enemies—step by step, according to plan, Vladyka Gorazd attained one goal after another, everything for the Church, nothing for his own person. Not a single little apple fell into his lap without labour. His work—the renewal of the Czech Orthodox Church—did not arise from a concurrence of advantageous circumstances and the favour of the powerful of this world. The Kingdom of God is obtained by striving—this applies literally to Czech Orthodoxy.

It is understandable that Vladyka Gorazd was very cautious toward people, rather suspicious, for insincere people whom he trusted betrayed and abandoned him. He had no liking for political careerists, idlers and loafers and parasites; yet even such strove to profit from their acquaintance with him.

He took interest in everything that cultural and national life brought. He was an expert on nationality questions in our state and an outstanding knower of history. For his juridical work no good jurist would have to be ashamed, not to speak of theology. It was a delight to listen to his conversations on these questions. He was directly a lover of the holy Orthodox Church, whose principles he brought forth into God’s light, removing the deposit of ages which often made the refreshing springs of Orthodoxy inaccessible. A democratic administrator of the Church, he always consulted with his co-workers not only on administrative questions but also on liturgical ones. The administration of the Church was for the Vladyka an exhilarating activity; he breathed it and lived it.

The priestly question was a very difficult and heavy problem for the Vladyka. He wanted priests devoted to Orthodoxy, knowing Orthodoxy, living Orthodoxically, pious, praying, educated; he wanted the clergy to be in contact with the public, to be members of national societies, to know national and Slavic questions and to be progressive and of the people. He rejected comfortable servants of the cult; he wanted to have from his priesthood true shepherds, brave servants of God and of the nation. Many priests could not bear this measure, and therefore they left. Gorazd had the right to require such priests, because he himself was a model of a spiritual person. A biblically simple shepherd, preacher, pious man, actively pious. His divine services inscribed themselves upon everyone’s heart. He did not love ostentation at them, especially not the kissing of hands. He adapted the Czech divine services, with the full authority of the Serbian mother Church, to missionary purposes among our nation, for he knew that it is not suitable to transfer onto sober Czech soil a certain Eastern pompousness.

Perhaps he would not agree with something in the church life of our time. Under his leadership the life of the Church developed according to plan. Every year at least one Orthodox church was opened, at least one book (mostly his) published. It would have distressed him if in every parish there were not a cleric and if even a single child were not taught religion, and if in every parish the youth past school age were not religiously instructed. For positive pastoral activity there is needed discipline in thinking, work, and conduct. Bishop Gorazd was an apostle and a model of discipline. This discipline was to be evident also outwardly. The cleric is to go to the divine services in a riassa and otherwise in black clothing; for the Vladyka was a principled opponent of priests going about in light-coloured clothes. As officers are not ashamed of their uniform, rather on the contrary are proud of it, so also priests by their clerical dress are publicly to manifest their belonging to the army of Christ the King—he wrote to me in 1933.

Priests are to be devoted to the Church; they are to have trust that God will not abandon them. They are not to be over-cautious and are not to consider only their own security. Vladyka Gorazd wanted to be thoroughly informed about church life. When he became convinced of an error, he was not afraid to correct it publicly. He knew how to lower himself to the lowest, but he also knew how to resist persons highly placed when he believed that they were not in the right.

I have mentioned that Vladyka Gorazd was a biblically simple preacher. Life taught him this. When he entered as a young assistant cleric in the Silesian village of Brumovice, he wanted to dazzle the hearers with his preaching. He succeeded for a certain time, but then with horror he discovered that he lacked material for “dazzling sermons.” On his knees he begged God to give him thoughts, until directly by inspiration after the model of Christ the Lord and after the model of His Sermon on the Mount he began to speak popularly and found many devoted hearers to the end of his life.

Especially the faithful of our village communities loved their Vladyka. In 1934 he moved with the eparchy office to Řimice near Litovel for reasons of economy and organization. To this day the local citizens without distinction of confession remember “the Mr. Bishop,” who knew how to converse with everyone, to stop with everyone with a sincere smile. He visited our church communities, taught congregational singing, and lectured on the beauties of Orthodoxy. He personally visited the majority of our members in their homes, himself being in fact without a home, without his own household, without human warmth, apart from that fervent warming enthusiasm for the Orthodox Church.

When the time of occupation came, he did not hesitate in his lectures to exhort our people to perseverance in resistance against the intruders. He did not hesitate later by a patriotic deed and by his life to repay the nation his love for it.

By God’s providence the archive of Vladyka Gorazd was preserved almost entire from the occupiers. When Vladyka Gorazd finds his biographer who will with love study this archive, God willing our public will be more closely acquainted with the spiritual national giant whose greatness was silenced by opponents. His memory, however, will by desert be eternally maintained by his spiritual child—the Czech Orthodox Church.

— Father A. Jiří Novák / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

The Preparation of Seminarians under the Guidance of St. Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Příprava bohoslovců pod vedením sv. Gorazda

From the very arising of the Czechoslovak Church in 1920, when still all its leading representatives were of one mind for negotiations concerning its union with the Serbian Orthodox Church, these founders thought far-sightedly of the future of the Church. Therefore into the memorandum of 3 September 1920 addressed to the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Church in Belgrade there was inserted the demand: “We request that for the time until we are able to open our own faculty and institute for seminarians, 15 of our charges be received and maintained at the theological school in Belgrade” (Vl. Grigorič: The Orthodox Church in the Czechoslovak Republic; Prague 1926, p. 89).

On the basis of this article of the official memorandum there were in the years 1921–24 indeed sent to Yugoslavia for studies several Czech and Subcarpathian-Ruthenian students of theology. They studied in seminaries of various cities (Sremski Karlovci, Bitola, Sarajevo). The majority of these seminarians then after graduating from the Yugoslav schools worked in Czechoslovakia; some returned home only after the war in 1946.

When then Vladyka Gorazd became in 1924 the eparchial hierarch of his independent Czech eparchy under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Church, he strove all the more that Czech seminarians should have a complete theological education, which they would receive at foreign Orthodox faculties. Hope of establishing an independent theological faculty among us was at that time unrealistic. Against the period of the 1920s, when students could be sent to Yugoslavia even to secondary-school seminaries, later it was primarily a matter of university students, that is Czech secondary-school graduates, who would study at Orthodox theological faculties not only in Yugoslavia but also in other Balkan countries. The secondary-school leaving certificate (maturita) was namely a condition for obtaining the congrua. Because that constituted the predominant part of the service salary of every pastoral administrator, Vladyka Gorazd strove that his priests should have a complete secondary education. If for some of our clergy who in the 1920s studied in Serbian seminaries the local secondary leaving certificate was recognized, this was no longer possible in later years. Therefore those last graduates of the Serbian seminaries additionally took the secondary leaving examinations at gymnasia in Czechoslovakia, so that a claim to the congrua might arise for them. For this purpose Bishop Gorazd did not hesitate to provide these seminarians fully materially. He proceeded here from the conviction that an Orthodox cleric who would represent his Church must be fully at the height not only in moral, liturgical, and pastoral respects, but also by his theological and general education. After all, he had to be by his erudition equal to the clergy of other churches, who had their theological faculties with a mature tradition. The question of full equivalence or a kind of competition of Orthodox priests with the priests of other churches was at that time of the renewal of Orthodoxy among us a very essential question, if not directly one of prestige. After all, there were even villages where there served, say, three pastors of other confessions, and there then among them it was a matter of prestige in their personal life, in the level of conduct and bearing, in preaching and serving, and in the understanding of the priestly office altogether. And at the same time especially in the village every cleric was exposed to the criticisms of members of other churches. It is obvious that such criticisms among competing believers were very strict. Only those clergy stood who were in every respect fully at the height. Vladyka Gorazd, himself exemplarily modest and renowned for all-round education, bore it very heavily if he had a priest who in the eyes of those of other confessions did not stand in some regard. Therefore he constantly impressed upon his clergy that they should continually educate themselves, that they should choose some theological field which they would systematically study and attain in it deep knowledge. They were to study, however, not only theology but also secular sciences, literature, history, languages, and music. He emphasized that a priest must know a great deal if he is to be able to instruct his faithful in everything, advise them, and if his addresses at the divine services are also to be at the proper level.

He himself was always for the clergy a model of diligence and never contented himself with what had been attained. During his not long tenure at the head of the eparchy he wrote a whole series of independent publications (they are all listed in the book Bishop Gorazd – From His Work, issued in 1988 by Prot. Dr. P. Aleš). Besides this there is scarcely a single issue of the journal Za pravdou and later of the Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy, published in the years 1921–1942, in which there was not his article, mostly a reflection or a sermon with the most varied themes. He also appealed to the clergy to write for the journal, for such journalistic activity compels to diligence, sharpens readiness of expression, and gives variety of view upon life in the Church.

When in the years 1933–34 the world economic crisis culminated, the leadership of the eparchy headed by Vladyka Gorazd weighed the possibility of relocating for pastoral and economy reasons with the centre of the Church from Prague to Moravia and that to one of the village church communities. The choice fell upon Řimice, where a suitable house was found for rent and for the placement of the offices and the hierarch’s apartment. From there it was near to all the church communities in the Litovel region, to Olomouc and Přerov, so that the clergy who worked in the eparchial administration could on Sundays celebrate the divine services in the filial church communities (Střemeníčko, Čelechovice na Hané, Tovačov, Kroměříž).

The seat of the eparchial church centre in Řimice very positively influenced the development of religious life throughout Moravia. In all communities the newly established Circles of Czech Orthodox Youth became active, which under the leadership of the young spiritual fathers from the centre developed public religious and recreational activity. There were held regularly weekly youth meetings at which questions from Holy Scripture, from church history, from doctrine, from liturgics, and from the sphere of literature, art, and song were treated. The youth circles arranged Christmas gatherings for children, played theatrical performances, and also arranged dance entertainments. After the publication of the Collection of Prayers and Chants in 1933, when Vladyka Gorazd began in the individual church communities to rehearse the liturgical chants, the youth became the foremost participants in these rehearsals. It may be said that these years were for the Orthodox Church the time of the greatest and most joyful flourishing of its work.

Amid all his very rich and exhausting activity of that time Bishop Gorazd did not forget even the future of his Church. That was conditioned above all by a sufficiency of clergy, because some of the priests who had gone over to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church were already of advanced age and one had to reckon with their gradual replacement by young forces. The activity of some students in the Youth Circle brought them to the thought of becoming clergy of the Church. This Vladyka Gorazd only welcomed, and when in Řimice three gymnasium students applied, one in Chudobín and later also two in Olomouc, he turned to the Serbian mother Church with a request for the placement of Czech secondary-school graduates as scholarship holders at the faculty in Belgrade and in Romania. Already in 1938 one of these students could be received for study in Chernivtsi, and in 1940 a further four were to enter the faculty in Belgrade. While one succeeded in entering the faculty in Chernivtsi and studying properly, for the other four wartime events prevented study in Belgrade. The Vladyka and the students greatly regretted that everything was ruined by the intervention of the so hated war, but neither he nor the seminarians capitulated. From Belgrade it proved possible to obtain lecture notes for study, and thus at the eparchial council there could be established a special study commission under the Vladyka’s leadership, before which the students in the years 1940–42 took examinations in the theological disciplines. The examination language could be either Czech or Serbian. The seminarians continued in their studies successfully, but unfortunately only until September 1942, when the activity of the Church was stopped by the known brutal intervention of the occupiers. The members of the examination commission were either executed (Bishop Gorazd and Dr. Petřek) or sent into the Reich for forced labour. The same fate also overtook one of the seminarians. The others by fortune saved themselves from labour in Germany; two withdrew from study as soon as there was no going to Yugoslavia.

The care of Vladyka Gorazd for a sufficiency of priestly recruits was always primary. Because his Church had only eleven church communities and four unsystematized filial communities, he knew that his eparchy must never remain without a sufficiency of clergy. Therefore he cared not only for an adequate number of seminarians, but eventually also received into the fellowship of the Church already ordained clergy from the Roman Catholic Church. Here however, unfortunately, it must be stated that these priests mostly disappointed him and never fully understood Orthodoxy.

Toward the education of priestly cadres there tended not least also the Vladyka’s long-standing intention to build a monastery in the Church. He considered this act already upon the arising of his eparchy. He knew that the importance of a monastery in every Church is great. The monastic brotherhood creates in the Church a firm moral foundation for its successful flourishing precisely by its voluntariness, order discipline, and sacrificial work for God’s work. He wanted that the Czech Orthodox monastery of St. Procopius of Sázava, whose founding had already in fact been realized by the obtaining of the first two monks, should link onto the ancient historical traditions of the Cyrillo-Methodian and Sázava periods. The significance of a renewed Czech Orthodox monastery would be not only an ecclesiastical significance but a whole-national and Slavic one, because it would spiritually join the Czech world with the all-Slavic world. It would become a cultural and scholarly institution whose first great task would be the deep study of periods in our history hitherto only one-sidedly interpreted and deliberately distorted, when the Czechs were in fact Orthodox. It is a pity that the building of a monastery among us could not be realized because of the occupation of our homeland. Bishop Gorazd always regretted that the Church has no school of its own and that study at the theological faculties of other churches cannot entirely satisfy our clergy. He always asserted that seminarians ought to pass through institutional boarding education, where for four years of study they would come to know practical coexistence in community and liturgical practice in the boarding chapel. Our Church has had this possibility only since 1950, when our independent faculty was established in Prešov.

Whoever had the fortune and could live in the proximity and under the wise guidance of Vladyka Gorazd—and today of these fortunate ones there are unfortunately already very few—must in truth testify to his all-round erudition with which he worked. He was truly a man gifted by God and fully devoted and faithful to his calling to stand at the head of renewed Orthodoxy among us. It is a pity that his work was ruined by the violent death which the most terrible evil of the twentieth century—fascism—prepared for him. Today we rightly ascribe to this hierarch the martyr’s crown of a saint and raise to him our prayers that from the heights of the heavenly Church he may bless his and our work. His merits for Orthodoxy among both our nations are immense. We, his faithful, must never forget this.

Pax.

— Pavel O. Axman / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Patriotism in the Life of Bishop Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Vlastenectví v životě biskupa Gorazda

Patriotism in the Life of the Holy New Martyr Bishop Gorazd⌗

On 4 September 1942, at the shooting range in Kobylisy in Prague, the shots of the murderous weapons of the German fascists rang out, ending the earthly pilgrimage of the martyr Vladyka Gorazd and his co-workers.

Half a century has passed since the Heydrichiáda—since the period when the Nazis’ frenzy reached its peak after the assassination, when for the removal of one of Hitler’s most zealous subordinates, a friend of Adolf Hitler and a dangerous enemy of our nations, thousands of Czech patriots perished on execution grounds and in concentration camps, when the massacre and burning of Lidice and Ležáky shook the conscience of the world.

In the Revelation of St. John, chapter 13, verses 1–5, we read: “And I saw a beast rising out of the sea… And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority… Men worshipped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’”

That is what the evangelist wrote, and from the depths of the millennia he beheld things that seemed, in the days of the Fascist reign of terror, to be fulfilled. The predatory beast, as Reinhard Heydrich was called, is in Scripture compared to the cunning and crafty leopard, to the strong and wild bear, or to the cruel and bloodthirsty beast—the lion—that settled among us and was to harm our nation.

It was our nation that called for resistance, that dared to fight against overwhelming odds, against the evil, unlimited, merciless power of fascism, victorious on every front in Europe. The Reich Protector Heydrich, against whom no one had the courage to stand, who had been charged with liquidating the Czech nation as a whole, fell by the hand of courageous Czechoslovak avengers—heroes. Thus was justly punished one of the highest officials of Nazi Germany and one of the worst executioners of the peoples of Europe. The Czech people regarded the assassination as a just and necessary act of retribution. “The assassination of Heydrich was and is one of the most significant heroic deeds in the modern history of our nations” (Lidová demokracie, 29 May 1987). In its immediate consequences the assassination took the form of a deadly scythe, of the shed blood of heroes and martyrs, of the multiplied and justified terror of the Nazi occupiers. Yet the Czech nation emerged from passivity, won morally, and did not perish.

The fact that Heydrich was punished by the hands of Czechoslovak patriots—the Czech Jan Kubiš and the Slovak Jozef Gabčík—evoked throughout the entire anti-Hitler world deep sympathy for the Czechoslovak people and extraordinary interest in their national resistance. The assassination itself, and the fact that hundreds of people of various social standing and of various political and religious convictions helped its authors, were a convincing proof of the Czechoslovak people’s resistance and hatred toward the Nazi occupiers, an expression of their united will and effort to restore an independent Czechoslovak state. They proved that our people had not reconciled themselves to the occupation, that they rejected shameful collaboration with the Nazis. (Čestmír Amort, Heydrichiáda, 1965, p. 68).

The assassination forever cast doubt, in Nazi ranks, upon their invulnerability; it pointed to the nascent downfall of Hitlerite fascism and weakened it.

Into history thereafter entered, as a symbol of great courage and of the manifold suffering of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia, the holy new martyr of our Church, Gorazd.

The assassination was carried out on 27 May 1942 at approximately 10:30 a.m. in a bend of the street in Holešovičky in Prague–Libeň. Heydrich was seriously wounded and on 4 June, despite all the care of medical specialists immediately summoned from Berlin, finally succumbed to his injuries. Operation Anthropoid thus succeeded. There were found devoted patriots in our nations who dared to fight the beast and destroy it!

After the assassins it was as if the earth had swallowed them up. Dozens of people secretly helped in their concealment for a single reward: death for themselves and their entire family. The resolute determination to stand up to the German occupiers overcame fear and anxiety.

The Nazis had long since decided to destroy the Czech nation, but now they came out into the open. After the night of horror—the raid of 27–28 May—they resolved to destroy one Czech village, without regard to which it would be. The choice fell upon Lidice. The village was razed to the ground, the men were shot, the women were deported to concentration camps; of 104 children, 9 were deemed “capable of Germanization” and only 16 returned home; the rest perished in the gas chambers at Chełm. Similar later was the fate of the village of Ležáky near Chrudim. There the entire population fell under the bullets of the execution squads. The world was horrified. Fascism revealed its true face, previously veiled in lying propaganda. Years earlier the Nobel Prize laureate Albert Schweitzer had declared: “The memory of the Lidice tragedy must remain alive in our world, so that we may rid ourselves of the thoughts of inhumanity that still exist in our time, and devote ourselves to the ideals of humanism, so that we may not risk that the tragedy of Lidice be repeated again in the future. Let us not entertain the illusion that it would not be possible. Against the thoughts of inhumanity that we still suffer, a struggle must be waged…”

Many reports and articles about the heroism of our people were published by the media both in the East and in the West. The front-line press of the Soviet army wrote: “The Czech people, who already in the Middle Ages were renowned for courage in the struggle against the German crusaders, have now spoken again and with the valiant hand of their national avengers have punished one of the highest commanders, the modern crusaders—the SS man Heydrich…” “Glory to the Czech heroes, our blood brothers, with whom we fight together and with whom we shall together defeat the Fascist beast!”… “The Czech people proudly claim their glorious national past and, after the example of their Hussite ancestors, strike the foreign invaders; the shots that felled the Gestapo man Heydrich are irrefutable proof of this. Glory to the Czech heroes” (Central Archive of the Ministry of Defence of the USSR—front-line press from June 1941). Some American newspapers wrote of the assassination as “the greatest contemporary event.” We see that the international response throughout the world was great, and rightly is the assassination of Heydrich regarded as one of the first and greatest deeds of the European anti-Fascist resistance.

Before the assassination the parachutists’ closest co-workers considered where to hide them after the act of vengeance. After weighing the possibilities, and on the proposal of Jan Sonnevend, chairman of the board of elders, and of Father Dr. Vladimír Petřek, it was decided that persons not registered with the police would for a temporary period be hidden in the crypt of the Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Resslova Street. Later the superior of the church, Václav Čikl, the sexton Václav Ornest, and on 11 June Bishop Gorazd learned of the parachutists’ hiding place. All the parachutists gathered in our church except one—Karel Čurda, who had not taken part in the action and later betrayed. His betrayal partially put the Gestapo on the trail. On 18 June in the early morning hours the siege of the church began. The unequal fight lasted until midday. The heroes in the crypt finally succumbed to superior force. None of the heroes was killed by SS gunfire; rather, all died unbowed, voluntarily, and by order of their commander A. Opálka with the last bullet from their own pistols.

Dr. Petřek was arrested first, already on the night of 17–18 June. In the morning they arrested Fr. Václav Čikl and the sexton Ornest. On 22 June the chairman of the board of elders, Jan Sonnevend, and on Thursday 25 June the Most Reverend Vladyka Gorazd was arrested. Bishop Gorazd wrote, still before his arrest, on 19 June, three letters—to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Education and National Enlightenment, and to the Office of the Reich Protector. In them Gorazd wrote: “I place my person at the disposal of the competent authorities and am willing to submit to every punishment, even the death penalty, for the salvation of the Church, for the salvation of those arrested, and so that an end may be made to the victims.”

The Most Reverend Vladyka Gorazd, the first Orthodox bishop of Bohemia and of Moravia-Silesia, after many struggles, after the hard path of renewing the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia, was closely bound by missionary work to the clergy and the faithful. As a good shepherd he resolved upon a deed by which he follows Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself and died for us, that He might save us, redeem us, deliver us. If we walk the path that Christ walked, we become His brothers—one may say, other Christs. Gorazd walked with his brothers the path of the martyrs, the followers of true love. Martyrs for the faith were, from the times of persecution, regarded as “icons” of the suffering Christ. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Shed blood washes from all sins and from every stain not only the individual, but all—that is, whole nations. By suffering everything is redeemed, writes Dostoyevsky. St. John Chrysostom saw benefit and meaning even in that suffering which is connected not only with the struggle for the faith, with sacrifice for God, but which is bound up with piety; it is a proof of the power of the Holy Spirit. That Spirit strengthened Gorazd under torture and in the laying down of his life for us.

All those arrested were tortured during interrogation. Their photographs before the Nazi summary court speak for all that they had to endure over two months. They bore torture and humiliation calmly. They suffered for the nation and for the faith, for the fate of our Church was at that moment closely bound to the fate of the nation.

On 3 September 1942 the trial began of Bishop Gorazd—secularly named Matěj Pavlík—of the parish priest Václav Čikl, of the chaplain Dr. Vladimír Petřek, and of the chairman of the board of elders of the Orthodox Church, Jan Sonnevend. The Nazis prepared the entire trial down to the smallest details; they forgot nothing. At the summary court in Prague the lists of those proposed for execution were signed by the president of the summary court as sole judge, so that the victims were executed without proper judicial proceedings and without a proper verdict. Available documents show that only in the case of the trial against Bishop Gorazd and three other co-workers of this Church did the summary court act as a collective body composed of: President Dr. Otto Geschke, assessors Wilhelm Schulze and Heinz W. Panwitz. Named president of the court was the chief of the Gestapo headquarters in Prague, Dr. Geschke; the prosecutor was Dr. Schulze. It was reckoned that the trial would not be long, that it would end in a few hours. Even before it began, editorial offices were selected that had to send their representatives to the hearing. Each editorial office had to submit a written declaration that they would publish an extensive treatment of the trial in the Sunday issue of the daily or magazine, of course in a tendentious wording according to Nazi instructions.

The verdict upon the accused was pronounced the same day. All knew it beforehand. On 4 September 1942, a Friday, at 2:35 p.m., Jan Sonnevend, Bishop Gorazd, and Václav Čikl were shot in Kobylisy. The condemned Vladimír Petřek was shot only the next day, Saturday 5 September 1942, at noon. (Jaroslav Žižka, Proti okupantům, 1975, p. 186, and State Central Archive, 305-701-3). The Nazis recorded, for example, the murder of Dr. Petřek with this report: “the Protectorate national, sentenced to death by the summary court in Prague, Vladimír Petřek, was shot on 5 September 1942 at 12 o’clock according to the above-mentioned measure of the State Police Headquarters in Prague. The death of the condemned occurred immediately and was verified by the senior police physician Dr. Stetter. The corpse was taken to the crematorium and there burned… the behaviour of the condemned before and during the execution was calm—without expression” (State Central Archive, 114-10-32). Father Dr. Vladimír Petřek behaved with great courage even under interrogation, and before the court he justified his conduct and activity in the resistance with the following words: “It has for centuries been customary that the Orthodox Church affords refuge to national fighters” (Čestmír Amort, Heydrichiáda, Prague 1965, p. 265).

His statement rests upon the experience of other Orthodox Churches—the Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek. I should like to recall that almost 66 years ago, at the episcopal consecration in Belgrade on 25 September 1921, in the presence of representatives of the great Russian nation headed by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, Gorazd was welcomed with the words: “You enter upon the soil of the martyred Serbian land as the chosen bishop of the restored Moravia-Silesia eparchy, whose first bishop was St. Methodius. We are aware that the enemies of our nations and of our Orthodoxy will do you injury, as they did to St. Methodius and his disciples, of whom the greatest was he whose name you have chosen… Your task is to contribute to the restoration to your nation of the true Cyrillo-Methodian inheritance, which Rome, with the first Gorazd, disciple of St. Methodius, expelled from the Great Moravian realm.” From that moment there began for Bishop Gorazd “a new period of life, which meant complete, boundless, and unconditional self-sacrifice for the good of all. He himself was conscious of his responsibility before God, the Church, and the nation” (Josef Kostka, Zájezd do Srbska, p. 191; Otázka kostelů, Olomouc 1922).

Saint Bishop Gorazd strove to create a national Church that regards itself as part of the nation’s life—a part that lives with the nation and is in solidarity with the nation’s fate unto life and unto death (On the Tasks and Orientation of the Czechoslovak Church, 1922, p. 171; Otázka kostelů, Olomouc 1922).

In connection with the summary court, the Protectorate newspapers of the time also wrote about the relation of the Czech Orthodox Church to the Serbian Church. The name of Patriarch Gavrilo, then imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp, was besmirched, and the life of Serbian Orthodoxy was ridiculed and belittled—of which Bishop Gorazd had already on 8 January 1921 in the National House in Smíchov declared: “There is no need to have any fears of common work with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Serbian Orthodoxy has raised up a nation of heroes.”

The Serbian Orthodox Church valued the heroism of Bishop Gorazd from the beginning. For several decades already it has honoured his memory, together with other Serbian martyrs of the same period, as the memory of holy new martyrs. Witness of this is the resolution of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, AS No. 1, § 33, of 17 April 1961, as well as Serbian icons depicting Bishop New Martyr Gorazd, renewer of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia.

The Czech public also learned of the verdict upon the accused Bishop Gorazd, the priests Čikl and Petřek, and the chairman of the board of elders of the Prague church community, Sonnevend, from the press of 6 September 1942. All the newspapers of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia published it. I cite some of the headlines: “The Crime of Bishop Gorazd and His Associates” (Lidové noviny), “Bishop Gorazd and His Companions before the Summary Court” (Národní práce), “Priests in the Service of Crime” (Nedělní list), “Helpers of the Assassins of General Heydrich before the Summary Court” (Národní politika).

The German Gestapo gathered a further 253 persons of Czech nationality arrested in connection with the provision of help to the parachutist-assassins in Terezín, the Small Fortress. Among them were the wife of the clergyman, Marie Čiklová; Marie Gruzínová, secretary of Vladyka Gorazd and member of the choir at the Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius; Karel Louda, member of the same choir; Marie Loudová, member of the choir and of the Youth Association; the sexton Václav Ornest; Františka Ornestová, the sexton’s wife; Miluše Ornestová, member of the church choir; and Marie Sonnevendová, wife of the chairman of the board of elders.

The Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia, on the basis of § 13 of the ordinance on the building of the administration and on German security in Bohemia and Moravia of 1 September 1939, made the following measure: The Czech-Orthodox communities (Churches) of the Serbian and Constantinopolitan jurisdictions in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia are hereby dissolved; every further activity in these religious communities (Churches) is forbidden to them. The property of these communities (Churches) is, in the sense of § 2 of the ordinance of 4 October 1939, seized and may be, insofar as the Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia has not made another measure, confiscated by the Secret State Police for the benefit of the Reich. This ordinance took effect by proclamation in the daily press on 27 September 1942. The Gestapo began carting away church property from the churches immediately on 27 September 1942, and the churches and prayer houses were locked for the feast of St. Wenceslas. Orthodox priests were taken by the Gestapo to forced labour in Germany, and the Orthodox faithful were left without clergy.

On Thursday 22 October a transport of 260 persons who had helped the parachutists was dispatched from Terezín to the Mauthausen concentration camp. In their accompanying papers was the designation “R.u.,” which meant Rückkehrt unerwünscht—return undesired. On 24 October 1942, in the course of a single day, all were tortured to death.

The twenty-one-year apostolic activity of the Orthodox Church in Bohemia and Moravia was violently interrupted by the martyrdom of Bishop Gorazd and his brothers, but not wholly crushed and ended. The faithful, with negligible exceptions, did not abandon the Church, although officially before the authorities they had to register as without confession; in many places they continued secretly to gather for prayer. Death with Christ is an amazing power transforming ourselves, and thereby the whole world. Whoever dies in Christ will rise with Christ to new life—to life whole in the world that will return to its original incorruption (Col. 3:3–4). From of old the Church has regarded martyrdom for Christ, for the Church, as an unfailing mark of holiness.

Vladyka Gorazd, the first Orthodox bishop of Bohemia and of Moravia-Silesia, renewer of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia, was canonized on the occasion of the 45th anniversary of his martyrdom, at the Divine Liturgy on Sunday 6 September 1987 in the Cathedral Church of St. Gorazd, disciple of St. Methodius, in Olomouc, and thereby was numbered among us also in the company of the holy venerated witnesses of God who intercede for us before the heavenly Father.

For the faithful and for our nation, St. Gorazd II became a symbol of the renewal of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia, a symbol of Slavic mutuality in the faith, a symbol of an opponent of the thoughts of inhumanity and humiliation, a symbol of an apostle proclaiming: “a genuine spiritualization of life, the strengthening of conscientiousness, a pure, party-unspoiled social feeling and action determined by the example of Christ, a moral rebirth and solidity that must penetrate and firmly settle everywhere that a brother and sister of our Church lives and works, whereby we shall contribute to the renewal of the life of all the components of our nation” (Tasks and Orientation of the Church, 1922, p. 175). Rendered into contemporary language—he calls for a new, right thinking and its consistent realization.

The holiness of Gorazd the new martyr and renewer is poured out upon all, for it went forth from all. It belongs therefore also to those who died with him, suffered with him, worked with him—to all who today honour his memory and continue in his work. His veneration is not the veneration of an individual, but also of hosts of the righteous. For among the chief qualities of St. Gorazd the new martyr belonged his bond with the nation, strong social feeling, patriotism, humility, and modesty. Gorazd wrote: “Love God and love your people, serve God and serve your people… Christianity teaches us to overcome evil and not to flee before evil” (24 January 1940).

Why did the Orthodox Church become part of the resistance against Fascist arbitrary power? What was Gorazd’s path to the sacrifice of life, to human heroism, to martyrdom, to holiness?

The foundation of everything was a deep Christian conviction and an upbringing in genuine piety from youth.

Of what Christian piety is we read, for example, in the Epistle to Diognetus from the third century: “Christians are not distinguished from other people… They are in the body, but they do not live according to the flesh. They observe what the laws prescribe, but by their manner of life they far surpass it. They love all and all persecute them. They are beggars, yet they enrich many. They are despised, yet in contempt is their nobility. They are insulted and they bless; they are mocked and they show honour. When they are punished with death, they rejoice as if they were awakened to life. When they conduct themselves as befits the good, they are punished as evil. But to say it in a word: what the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the world.” Gorazd was aware that we are to bring forth the fruits of a pious life each in his own way and in his vocation according to his strength, his tasks and duties in the given situation. Everything that we strive to do perfectly, the desire for perfection in ordinary life, is piety. It leads Gorazd as far as the perfect, complete sacrifice of his own life.

From his student years Gorazd’s patriotic anti-German attitude was formed. He condemned German-Germanic influence and complete Germanization, yet he was not a blind nationalist. He says: “The weaker has not only the right but also the duty to defend himself; one must beware of all hatred, both personal and of nations.” Christ the Lord proclaimed the equality of all nations (Our Struggle with Germanization, article from the journal Našinec, 1902, nos. 69–70). Bishop Gorazd continues the awakeners’ effort, its penetration into church life by promoting the Czech language in the services. He takes an interest in the life of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and his interest is intensified in the year 1900 by a visit to Kiev, the former centre of ancient Kievan Rus’. The visit to Kiev was Gorazd’s first encounter with Orthodoxy. Russian Orthodoxy influenced his view of the history of the Church among us, and acquaintance with it bore fruit later as well. Gorazd declared Orthodoxy to be the most fruitful form of Christianity from both the religious and the national standpoint.

In the period of the founding of Czechoslovakia he was one of the leading representatives of the religious “Renewal,” which then issued in the creation of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia. The whole movement cooperated in the national-liberation process and in the creation of an independent Czechoslovak Republic. The renewal of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia and the effort to build this Church contain within themselves a historical continuity that begins with the sending of Cyril and Methodius from Constantinople to Great Moravia. It continues after the expulsion of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius from Moravia, in their Orthodox mission among the South Slavs—the Serbs and Bulgarians. Further, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition develops strongly in Kievan Rus’. After centuries it returns from the hands of the Serbian Orthodox Church again to Moravia and Bohemia at the consecration of Bishop Gorazd, when the Serbian Orthodox Church repaid an ancient debt to the sons of Moravia for the spreading of the faith by the Moravian disciples of Cyril and Methodius. After the hard trial of the Orthodox Church in the Second World War and a further ban upon the Orthodox Church among us, the resurrected Orthodox Church obtains independence—autocephaly—from the sister Russian Orthodox Church.

Bishop St. Gorazd arrived at a conscious anti-war stance already during the First World War, when he cared for sick and wounded soldiers. Then come the familiar events—the Fascist occupation and the war, which crudely disrupted the fruitful missionary work of Bishop Gorazd. From the message against fascism and war, addressed in 1938 to all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, we recognize the depth of his patriotic stance, responsibility, and courage. This stance was completed and crowned by his martyrdom.

After the liberation of Czechoslovakia our nation spontaneously acknowledged and admired the heroism and merits of the Orthodox Church led by Bishop Gorazd in the struggle against fascism. Svobodné slovo of 27 May 1945 wrote: “Of the courage, honour, and national fidelity of the men who afforded the parachutists refuge, the most beautiful testimony is given by the course of the court hearing before the summary court. All were aware of what awaited them, and they looked this fate in the face without fear and with complete calm of soul. Chaplain Petřek, parish priest Čikl, and Bishop Gorazd are names that belong in the most honourable place among the sacrifices on the front of home resistance.” Právo lidu of 19 June 1945 wrote: “For the Czechs there will remain two sacred places where one must enter with reverence: Lidice and the Orthodox church in Prague 2.” “The Orthodox church will deservedly become a place of pilgrimage for all the liberated Czech people, for here the first mighty blows of our national resistance rang out” (A. Krejčí, The Great Deed of a Small Church; Prague 1945). After the Second World War, in 1945, Bishop Gorazd was decorated in memoriam by the President of the Czechoslovak Republic with the Czechoslovak War Cross 1939, for he had deserved well of Czechoslovakia, of the defeat of fascism, and of life in peace.

The sacrifices of the small Czech Orthodox Church were great. It gave the nation the best it had. After the war, restored, it went out with the nation into new work. It walks the path that its martyrs, headed by St. Bishop Gorazd, showed it—a path that is and always will be bound to the path upon which our nation will walk.

The canonization of Bishop Gorazd contributed to the raising and deepening of the spiritual life of the Church, to the raising of the authority of our Orthodox Church at home and abroad. The proclamation of Gorazd’s holiness is also an expression of recognition of the unbroken ideals of our nation, of its deep humanity. The holy new martyr Gorazd is an example of contemporary genuine active Christianity, of love of neighbour, of the Church, and of the homeland.

— Prot. Dr. Jaroslav Šuvarský / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Holy Vladyka Gorazd, Venerator of the Venerable St. Sergius of Radonezh⌗

Czech original: Svatý vladyka Gorazd, ctitel ctihodného Sergije Radoněžského

In the year 1392 there fell asleep in God the holy and venerable founder of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity, the famous monastery also called, after its founder, the Sergius Lavra (Sergiyev Posad)—St. Sergius of Radonezh. Every saint of the Church is in some way distinctive, because he belongs to a certain historical time and to an unrepeatable historical milieu. But all also have something in common. Therefore it was possible to reflect upon what St. Venerable Sergius six hundred years ago and our holy Bishop Gorazd, representative of the Czech Church, who ended his life blessed in the Lord half a century ago as a martyr for Church and nation, had in common.

Common to all the saints is a deep and unshakeable rootedness in God. Holiness proceeds always and everywhere solely from that fundamental source—the saints are therefore honoured for their holiness because to a certain degree they reflect the absolute, perfect, and all-embracing holiness of God, the holiness of all three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. This holiness was revealed to the world in fullness by the Lord Jesus. Therefore the Church sings in her Liturgy: “One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.” This holiness of Jesus Christ, God revealed, is stirred up, strengthened, and extended in people by the Holy Spirit, Christ’s Advocate—the Comforter and the Lord, the Giver of Life. All Christians who have entered upon the path of the struggle for holiness meet in this radiance of the holiness of God, and therefore their inner spiritual formation too is alike.

To attempt to draw parallels between the life and orientation of St. Venerable Sergius and other saints—concretely, the life and work of our new saint, the martyr Gorazd—is therefore by no means arbitrary or presumptuous. Moreover, it was precisely our holy Bishop Gorazd who was a great venerator of the Venerable Sergius, as is shown by his book modestly entitled A Guide to the Olomouc Cathedral Church of St. Gorazd, a work that in reality contains a whole collection of the lives of holy men and women from all periods and regions of church history. To St. Sergius are here devoted pages that belong among the most beautiful.

The Venerable Sergius of Radonezh lived at a time when Rus’, after the Tatar invasion, lay in ruins. In the year 1242 these Mongol conquerors destroyed Kiev and devastated and burned all the cities and settlements of southern Rus’. In two great military streams through Poland and Hungary the Tatar hordes rushed on further into Central Europe. But here their assault was after all no longer so fierce, even though their ravaging and devastation aroused universal horror. The main blow of their armies was received by bleeding Orthodox Rus’. The Mongols in Rus’ destroyed not only the outward face of the land, but also the manifestations of culture, and for a long time undermined further spiritual development in the Russian nation. The country’s economy too suffered a heavy blow. It is interesting that from the middle of the thirteenth century, when this invasion of devastating foreigners occurred, until the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Venerable Sergius lived and created around himself an oasis of spiritual monastic life, we find among the Russian saints no monk. There are martyrs, bishops—shepherds who stand at the head of the spiritual flock—but saints from the monastic ranks there are none. It would seem that precisely a historical catastrophe would call monasticism into life, as an effort to confront disasters by the cultivation of spiritual life, but the opposite is true. It seems that this phenomenon is characteristic also of the spiritual catastrophes that befall the modern world—thus after both the First and the Second World Wars the Church experiences a kind of crisis of monastic orientation, as is clearly to be seen, for example, on Athos, or also among us, where efforts at the rebirth of Orthodox monasticism continually ran up against various strange obstacles and temptations. In such situations God rather calls saints from among people of practical orientation, who obediently and industriously bear their mission amid “streams of spiritual uncertainty,” as the troparion to St. Gorazd II expresses it.

Old Rus’—that was the monasteries around the great cities, spiritual centres secured by the princes—similarly in the Middle Ages among us also common monastic life could flourish thanks to the material provision of the rulers, as we observe for example in Great Moravia, where Prince Rostislav especially cared for this aspect of the church mission, or in later Bohemia, where by the care of the sovereign (probably Oldřich) there could arise from the simple hermitage of St. Procopius the significant and culturally immensely fruitful Sázava Monastery. The spiritual foundations of monastic life, of course, could not be laid by the sovereign, but had to be built by great spiritual monastic (eremitical) personalities. Of this Vladyka Gorazd was evidently also aware, for it is known that toward the end of his years he himself longed to create a modest monastery and to dedicate himself in it to the deepening of his spiritual programme. This task awaits his successors.

Even in the longing for the eremitical life one can see a similarity between the holy lives of Sergius and Gorazd (with this difference: that St. Sergius could realize this longing, whereas St. Gorazd had to deny himself the fulfilment of this longing ascetically, for outward circumstances—his momentary irreplaceability for the local Orthodox Church then being renewed—required it).

Upon the ascetic consciousness and effort of individuals, of great personalities, many further souls wait who of themselves would not resolve upon a similar undertaking, but who allow themselves to be carried away by a great example. The radiance of the Venerable Sergius worked also in this respect in Old Rus’. Simultaneously in several places there awakens in people a longing for a full spiritual life, apart from the world and its irritations, cares, and chase after gain. St. Sergius becomes their leader. We know from his time the monks of the Trans-Volga monasteries and the monks from the northern regions. But only of St. Sergius has a life—Zhitie, as it is called in the Church Slavonic language—been preserved. It was composed by Epiphanius the Wise. The narrative drew upon family traditions about the boy Bartholomew (thus was St. Sergius named before receiving monasticism), and precisely to his childhood there belongs a wondrous experience: the boy was dedicated to the service of the Holy Trinity already in his mother’s womb, where the child thrice made himself heard during the Liturgy in which the mother took part in deep prayer. The Trinitarian interpretation was afterwards more often reflected in his life—soon, for example, at the meeting of the boy Bartholomew with a mysterious elder in the forest—the elder blessed the boy—and also when his brother Stephen proposed in the forest to build a wooden chapel in honour of the most holy name of the Divine Trinity.

Similar experiences are had by all people endowed and led by the Holy Spirit. Vladyka Gorazd too owed much to his mother, who led him to a deep sensing of spiritual workings—she showed him the image of St. Anna and urged him, as he recalls, always, throughout his whole life, to be like St. Anna and her daughter—the Virgin Mary.

A distinctive trait in the life of St. Sergius is the story of the miraculous bestowal of extraordinary abilities for learning, abilities quickly to grasp the studies undertaken, receptivity to spiritual culture—simply the enlightenment of natural psychic capacities. Both figures have here something in common. God prepares His witnesses, but that preparation is not some violent pressure upon the human personality, but a gentle leading in which the soul of man freely develops and answers God’s promptings with its own activity. But then our parallel between the two saintly lives diverges. In Rus’ we further see the hermit who himself longs to live in the wilderness and there to complete his life with God after the example of the first Russian saints—for example St. Theodosius of the Caves in Kiev, who is like Sergius also in bodily strength, endurance, and the capacity to bear physical hardships in the forest wilderness thanks to the depth of his personality.

In humility too both great Russian hermits are alike, and here our holy Bishop Gorazd also ranges himself with them by his helplessness before petitioners.

In the Venerable Sergius his contemporaries admired immense humility as the chief characteristic of his personality—a special humility that never punished; that humility, almost irresponsible, led nearly to anarchy in the monastery. Sergius let himself be hired as a servant to one of the monks, to his subordinate, for a handful of mouldy loaves, or to a peasant who laughed in his face because of the beggarly, torn and holey garments that Sergius wore—but he bows to the mocker down to the ground and leads him to himself to the table. He never punished his spiritual children, nor did he punish sinners. The miracles that he performed he strove to keep silent, that they might not be regarded as something extraordinary: God after all does this; God has granted it to us unworthy ones… After the manner of the Studites (the monks of the monastery of St. Theodore the Studite in Constantinople in the ninth century, a contemporary of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius) he went round the cells at night and knocked on the little windows behind which the rule was being broken… He knew, of course, of the necessity of oversight, that the rule might not be broken; that was not indifference to sin.

Sergius’s pity and compassion with the suffering commanded that the poor and pilgrims be cared for, that everything be given to those who need help. Saint Bishop Gorazd too was almost helpless toward those who came to ask; he gave, though he knew that he was being robbed.

St. Sergius of Radonezh was characterized in his life as a man in whom there is manifested “simplicity without variegation.” What does that mean? There was in him nothing that gazed upon its own lustre or dignity, upon its “I” or upon its “function,” its “office.” Those clergy are otherwise called “variegated” who are proud of themselves, of their position, of their functions, of “variegated” vestments. Nothing of the kind was in the Venerable Sergius. As we know from the testimony of their contemporaries, both St. Sergius and St. Gorazd were adorned by extraordinary modesty and humility.

The most significant events of the saintly life of St. Sergius were his meetings with the Most Holy Theotokos, who appeared to him together with the apostles St. Peter and St. John. He was called by the Mother’s lips her chosen one. Saint Bishop Gorazd too was her fervent venerator; he devoted special attention to the choice of the word by which his spiritual sheep would invoke the Mother of God—after mature consideration he chose the word in which the Czech language meets the Old Slavonic language (the language in which St. Sergius too prayed to the Most Holy Virgin)—the beautiful, lofty, and dignified word “Bohorodice” (Theotokos).

Worthy of note also is a further common trait of Sergius’s and Gorazd’s saintly thinking. St. Sergius blessed the defenders of the homeland when, after exhausting non-violent possibilities and negotiations, they went into battle against the Tatar khan—to cast off the yoke stifling the nation and its Orthodox faith, to defend and liberate the homeland. St. Sergius “blessed all and asked (Prince) Dimitry whether he had done everything to avert the necessity of war, especially whether he had rendered the Tatar khan due honour and paid him the gold that he demanded, ‘for if such things the enemies demand, we are in the spirit of Holy Scripture bound to give them to them.’ But for the name of Christ, for the Orthodox faith and for the good of the nation it is necessary even to lay down one’s soul (that is, one’s life). The prince answered that he had done all this, but in vain. ‘If you have done this, destruction awaits the enemy, and you help, grace, and the glory of God.’ Dimitry fell upon his knees. Sergius blessed him and said: ‘Go, fear not, God will help you,’ and bending to him he said yet: ‘You will conquer.’ … Dimitry wept, rose, and went into battle unto life and unto death. … Dimitry with the army rushed ever forward … so that in the event of defeat retreat was almost impossible. Upon his heart he bore a letter of St. Sergius… At noon (8 September 1380) there came the great battle on the field of Kulikovo. In those hours St. Sergius prayed with the monastery brethren in the church; he prayed for victory and also for the fallen, of whom there were many. Mamai (the khan) was utterly defeated.” Saint Gorazd too supported the defence of the homeland, the nation, and the Orthodox faith against the centuries-old ruinous Western pressure, personified in the Fascist occupiers; drawn into this defence against the yoke of Nazism, he shed his blood. (ed. note)

* * *

To the readers of this essay we recommend looking into the booklet A Guide to the Cathedral Church of St. Gorazd in Olomouc and reading the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh on pp. 38–42 (whence is taken the quoted excerpt from the life of St. Sergius).

— /pa/ (Pavel Aleš) / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Through the Eyes of a Child⌗

Czech original: Očima dítěte

(a child’s observations of Vladyka Gorazd)

When as a child I walked along the street beside him, I always toddled with my head bowed. I took anxious care not to trip, stumble, or slip, and in general that nothing should happen that must not happen when one walks beside a person of extraordinary significance. I looked neither to the right nor to the left. Vladyka Gorazd walked almost in silence. If no grown-up was near, he spoke little. He was always as if immersed in himself. He gazed at the path ahead for a short distance; at moments he raised his head with a quick glance into the distance and at once again bowed his head. I waited for questions. When they did not come, I was silent too. I did not dare myself to strike up conversation, nor to ask about anything. To us children “our Mr. Bishop,” as we all called him among ourselves, appeared an immensely serious and strict gentleman. Whenever he announced his arrival, the house was immediately “upside down.” Cleaning, scrubbing, polishing. Nervousness rose day by day. And when he then arrived, everything was very simple. He offered Mother his hand, inquired after her health, thanked her for the forthcoming hospitality, and stroked us children on the hair. To each he spoke one or two sentences; the smile on his face was brief and faint, his voice resonant. He expressed himself briefly and to the point. He did not linger over the superfluous phrases that are usual at a meeting. He nodded his head and disappeared with Father into the dining room. The dining room was Father’s study. Sometimes during these visits I crouched there in a corner under the window. I did not understand much of what they spoke about with Father. But nevertheless I listened—and looked.

Among all those who came to us from the Church—and there were then many, very many—he was absolutely exceptional. To listen to him and at the same time to observe him close at hand during conversations was for me fascinating. Someone present uttered a sentence, another answered, and at once there was a passionate polemic in which within a few minutes the Vladyka’s voice dominated the space. He was very quick in his judgments. His thoughts raced. For another it was very hard to keep up with them. His instantaneous verbal reactions were extraordinary. The keenness of his thinking was unique. In solving problems he immediately convinced. What he had once thought through and closed with a final decision, from that he did not retreat. In moments when he was filled with one-hundred-percent certainty that the matter for which he was going was right, he raised his voice. He quickly rose from the chair. He folded his arms behind his back and with quick short steps hurried round our oval dining table. Father rose too, rested the fingers of one hand on the writing-desk top, and silently followed the vehemence of expression and the rapid walking of his superior.

Vladyka Gorazd was in private perhaps vehement in speech. But he never shouted. His voice, however, in moments of excitement was like a bell. He proved, pointed out, emphasized, required. Words fell rapidly one after another as in battle. There were no pauses. Vladyka Gorazd never sought for an expression. He had an enormous vocabulary, and his sentences spouted like a geyser. By then he no longer had his arms behind his back. Gestures entered among the words. Short, measured against the words, but also energetic. In the rapid walking round the table his figure leaned a little forward; after a while the arms again joined behind the back; the head bowed and rose. The eyes followed the ground. Yes. Those eyes! Small, round, with the keen movements of the pupils. I can recall them even today. I saw them then mostly from the side, from below, from the place of my corner under the window. I followed them very carefully. They seemed to me small. And sick. The lids were often reddened. I was sorry that they had to hide behind unusually thick spectacle lenses. Those eyes rarely stopped with a look in one place. It seemed to me that they were always hastening. Together with the thoughts being uttered. If ever the gaze steadied, it was always only for a second. At once it flared again. I watched how those sick, as if tired eyes sparkled with a resolute gleam despite their illness and for not a moment allowed themselves anywhere, wherever it might be, a calm rest.

Yes. The pace of his speech was vehement. Vladyka Gorazd set himself great tasks and was convinced that it was right so. He was strict with himself and required the same of others. He was a great inspirer and also an executor.

I sat in the corner and looked at that remarkable man to whom it was not possible to object. He was critical and consistent. A small person beside him could not stand. I looked with eyes wide open. Father still stood leaning on his desk; with the other hand he occasionally passed thoughtfully over his face and chin. In a quiet voice, so entirely different from the bishop’s voice, he uttered a question. And the dining room at once rang in answer with the clear sound of pure metal. Loudly, freshly. In that man there was an admirable strength and tenacity and immense will. And all this was reflected in that voice which forever reminded me of a bell. That man could never lose. And never surrender. From the depth of his thinking he brought forth truths, and then no one succeeded in refuting them. There was certainty in him. That we children sensed too. We were not afraid of him. Only we felt ourselves beside him too small. His voice was in our flat as if omnipresent. I hear it to this day.

At the end of November in the year 1937 Vladyka Gorazd came to us in Třebíč in order “on the basis of the published collection to explain the most important Orthodox prayers and to practise the chants.” Thus he introduced his missionary activity in the circular that he sent round to all the families of the church community. At that time he lodged in the vicinity of our flat. He occupied one room on the ground floor of a two-storey house. In the middle of the room was a large table, opposite the door a bed, beside it a wardrobe, in the corner by the window a writing desk, and in another corner a washbasin. Great people do not usually have great demands for themselves. He then said that he would need someone to take care of his post for him. The lot fell upon me. I was very proud of that honour. I was only a second-form girl, and to be daily near a great man was an enviable thing.

Every afternoon I came, and at the table in the middle of the room, where there was always piled an unbelievably high heap of unattended post, I stamped letters, recorded registered letters, stuck stamps on envelopes, wrapped parcels of booklets, brochures, and the like. I felt important. The bishop never joked. He was serious even in this moment before me. He knew only work, work, and again work.

Once at my knock no invitation sounded. I therefore pressed the handle and opened. I stood still in surprise. On the bed against the wall the quilts were stacked high, and on the pillow, face upward toward the ceiling, lay the Vladyka’s head. The beard raised above the quilt, the eyes without spectacles fixed upon the white ceiling. Otherwise nothing of the bishop’s figure was to be seen.

“Is that you?” he asked.

“Yes, please,” I answered.

He told me that everything was ready and that I should dispatch the post as always. And that I should come again tomorrow. I did not dare ask about anything. I hurried with the work. It was clear to me that the bishop was ill and that he did not want to ask anyone for any service. Upon leaving I could not bear it and asked whether he needed anything. He answered in the negative. I carefully asked whether a doctor had been with him. He said that he was accustomed to treat himself and that I should go now. Suddenly he seemed to me terribly abandoned. It was for me utterly unusual to see this man, small in stature but great by his work, lying in bed so entirely without movement, wholly hidden in white quilts carefully stacked upon himself, in which nothing—neither a shoulder nor a finger of the hand—moved or was even to be seen. Only on the pillow there lay, as if entirely solitary, that wise head with restless eyes gazing into the ceiling in continual pondering. When Vladyka Gorazd was executed after the events connected with Heydrich’s death, the image of that solitary head on the white pillow often returned to me in recollection.

That day, instead of going to the post office, I ran home first. I rang as for an alarm. When Mother opened, I blurted out: “The bishop is lying covered up to the chin, he doesn’t move, his head is upward, with his eyes he looks at the ceiling. He doesn’t want a doctor. He’ll probably die. You must do something.” And I was gone. I hurried to the post office. I knew that Mother would not deliberate long and would bring a doctor. Then the bishop had to submit. It is true, however, that he used to treat himself. He was versed in all the sciences and thus also in medicine. He was excellently acquainted with domestic medicine and combined this with scientific knowledge. I think there was no science in which he was not interested and which he had not taken into the range of his knowledge. In the care of health he laid emphasis on hardening. “Harden yourselves and go in for sport,” he used to say to us. He himself swam and skied well. He believed that in this way psychic and physical resilience would be increased. He lived immensely temperately. And just as for him there existed no activity other than work, so for him there existed no gourmandise in food. His regimen was exemplary. I am convinced that he would have endured Nazi imprisonment if they had not tortured him and then executed him. He was immensely strong spiritually. Therefore he could dare to emphasize readiness for deeds. In the troubled year of thirty-nine he said to Father: “We must not only speak for the homeland, but also sacrifice ourselves for it.” His extra-ecclesiastical, that is patriotic, activity during the war was extensive, but little is known of it. He joined love of the Orthodox Church with love of the nation. These two values in a person’s life he placed highest. To fulfil this thought became for him the meaning of life.

And one further observation about him I remembered. He greatly valued mothers. Several times I noticed how strictly his gaze settled into the eyes of one of the men. He could not endure any baseness in marriage. Married women sought with him protection and help. The family was for him a sacred bond. In the communities where he worked missionarily he always wanted to know how each family lived, and he taught the priests to devote themselves also to these questions. One may say that his priests knew all the private problems of their parishioners.

Everywhere, wherever he came, everywhere people honoured and loved him. In Třebíč he gave lectures with a great attendance of Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The non-Orthodox came to him with feelings of admiration for his all-round education and for the genuineness that he presented in all sections of his work. Because of the seriousness of his face many remained at a meeting with him at a respectful distance and in silence—and yet he, after his departure from Opatov, wrote to simple people—the Štěpníček couple, who in Opatov cared for his meals and the cleaning of the flat: “I shall never be able to repay you…” and further “you were so kind, attentive, loving to me.” It is evidently the privilege of the great that they do not realize their greatness. Those modest, warm words in that letter confirm it.

I think that the Vladyka was glad in Třebíč and in Opatov. I dare say that there he was content. Especially in Opatov, where he found faithful people wholly devoted to work in the Church. My father was therefore immensely happy. I remember his enthusiasm. Those two people were entirely different in outward expression. Yet one thought and one goal joined them so firmly, inseparably, that even the surroundings felt this very strongly and yielded to it as to something life-giving.

I also remember how Vladyka Gorazd gave. He did not think of his own needs; he gave of his own—as long as he had. In all directions and not only to church communities, but also to individuals. People who did not belong to our church fellowship also came to him with requests for money. In his goodness toward people in need he was entirely defenceless, and he gave. At the end of the month he was always without money. He disliked hearing Mother’s remark that many people did not deserve his help. He said nothing to that; he only frowned. To us children he was in such a moment suddenly nearer. As if he had descended from the height of his extraordinariness. He could not contradict Mother, because he knew that she was right, but he knew also that he must act as he acts. His heart would not allow him to act otherwise. In this precisely a great person is near to a child and vice versa. Both are helpless before the purity of their thinking and feeling.

As time ran on and we children grew up, Vladyka Gorazd became for us a personality. I was allowed to listen to him and speak with him as an adult. There was no longer childish wonder, but humble admiration. But many years still passed before I admitted to myself the question: By what did I deserve that I could look upon the work of a man of such high values, listen to his voice, think about what he said in my presence? Is it possible that I was allowed in so early a childhood to penetrate into the thinking and creating of a man whom I cannot reach even with a single line of my zealous recollections?

It is presumptuous for an ordinary person to write about an extraordinary person. I wished, however, also to express how great a gift it is for a child to be born in a priest’s family, above all an Orthodox priest’s. Working life, public life, cultural and church life here interpenetrate entirely evenly and naturally as one whole, filled with feelings worthy of a cultured person. That whole then becomes a well from which in later age we can draw in the moments of our weaknesses. And it is happy if there returns to us afterwards from our consciousness the voice that once sounded into a child’s perception like a bell.

— Alena Feiferlíková–Leixnerová / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

A Few Pictures from Memories — Three Meetings with Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Czech original: Pár obrázků ze vzpomínek - tři setkání s vladykou Gorazdem

“The martyr Vladyka Gorazd was a very modest man. He took his meals in our family for a number of months, and truly I have never seen a more modest man than he. Even though he occupied in the Church the highest rank, he did not forget his country and peasant origin. He himself asked only for country fare: potatoes, milk, vegetables. Meat dishes only very rarely. In the pre-Christmas period and during Great Lent he lived almost as an ascetic. He took only as much nourishment as he needed for the preservation of life.” (From the recollections of Rostislav O. Hoffmann).

“For three months he lived with me during a period which he used for visits to brothers and sisters in their homes. As highly educated as he was, so was he also modest… He took his meals with me; he was not particular and ate everything. He was very fond of raw vegetables (carrots, spinach, cauliflower, and even cold boiled potatoes, which he himself asked of me and took as a delicacy). Very often we spoke and made plans, very serious ones—for example about a monastery in Řimice and Střemeníčko, and then there was conversation about children’s nurseries; that the Vladyka wanted to finance himself, and therefore he was so modest; yet at the same time he was exceedingly generous to those who asked. In the morning he rose at five o’clock. He used the time until breakfast for a morning walk. After breakfast he diligently worked on a book (The Life of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Their Relation to Rome and Constantinople).

Between breakfast and lunch he asked for no refreshment. After lunch he did not rest, but at once set to further work. That was attending to the post… For three days a week he taught singing in Královo Pole at the school where we had reserved one classroom in which we practised church chants. He also taught in Brno and Židenice. In the evening far into the night he wrote his work, that it might be finished before he again left Brno for another religious community…” (Recollections from the Vladyka’s stay in Brno in the years 1935–36 by Pravomila Studená, foundress of the Orthodox church in Brno).

“Unforgettable are the services served with the martyr Vladyka. I always saw in him a saint. Every word of his in the uttering of the prayers, every action of his, was permeated with fervent piety. How deeply he experienced the Divine services I came to know at the Good Friday Vespers in 1937 in Chudobín. The Vladyka came into the church serious and thoughtful. I had seen him more often in such a frame of mind, and therefore I did not ask after the cause. On that day he prayed especially fervently. When together we had brought out the holy epitaphios (the image of the body of Christ taken down from the cross; it is used at the services at the end of Great Lent and in the Paschal season) and had bowed before the crucified Saviour, Jesus Christ, he withdrew to the solea to deliver a sermon. He only, however, addressed the faithful and for weeping could not utter a single word. He returned into the sanctuary and asked me to preach myself. All present in the church were deeply moved, and we conjectured about the cause. Throughout the whole time of the sermon the Vladyka knelt before the holy altar, having his hands folded upon his breast; he prayed and wept. After the end of the service I carefully asked the Vladyka what had been the cause of his weeping. And then he answered me: ‘Today all Christians ought to weep over their sins and become conscious of their guilt before the Lord Jesus!’ I understood his weeping.” (From the recollections of Father Rostislav O. Hoffmann).

Three Meetings with Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Where to begin with recollections of Vladyka Gorazd, when his whole life is a book written on every side, for the Creator assigned him the task of renewer of Orthodoxy in the Czech lands. And yet I have personal recollections which by their weight have permanently impressed themselves upon my memory.

After the passing of the stubborn jurisdictional and congrua struggles, the Vladyka began to build the inner life of the Church. Once at our house he said: “My longing is to build a monastery of the Sázava type, from which would go forth the pure teaching of the Church as in the days of St. Procopius from the noble silence and humility of the monks, models for priests. There I could also send those who have violated the doctrine of the faith, that they might reflect upon themselves.” The faithful understood the Vladyka’s wish and willingly contributed to the monastery. There was even founded a library of the monastery of St. Procopius of Sázava. Time passed. The Vladyka came to us again, but he was sad, for the monks had gone into “civilian life.” He had believed of them that they would realize his plans, but they deeply wounded him, and the monastery was not realized…

Again a long time passed. Churches were being built, and at every building the Vladyka was burdened with cares. And so one Sunday he came to us. At once we with Father recognized that something weighed upon him. After a short conversation he confided to us his care. In Olomouc they had unconditionally to repay a larger sum of money toward the cost of the church, but they had not the means. He took upon himself the care of finding the money and came to us and asked whether we could help. Then I felt pride at the conduct of my father, who said: “Dear Vladyka, I will give you the money at once, and Olomouc can repay it to me according to its possibilities.” The spark of joy in the missionary’s eye engraved itself as a recollection deeply into my soul. The more so that both men, the Vladyka and Father, were of the same age.

The course of life ran on further, full of cares and missionary journeys through the church communities. And in the world it was heavily clouding over. War threatened. Our Church too was seized.

Before our house a car stopped. The Vladyka arrived. Stooped, eyes full of sadness, and said: “Please give me the books that I left with you. I am coming from the station and will leave at once. Be careful. I am being watched by the Gestapo and I would not want them to know that I had come to you.” Firm handshakes, a deep look, full of pain and sadness. The Vladyka drove away. That was the last time we saw him.

My remembering does not end with this sad picture, but with the certainty that the faithful servant has passed to his Lord to receive his reward. By his modesty, firm faith, and all-round education he was honoured by us as Gorazd II, who left us the duty that we not only protect but also multiply his work.

— A. Valentová / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Literature:

Hlas Pravoslaví no. 5, 1949, and no. 4, 1979.

What Bishop Gorazd Was Like⌗

Czech original: Jaký byl vladyka Gorazd

(A coworker’s recollection)

It is enough merely to say: “Speak, for example, of his knowledge,” and before my eyes picture after picture appears, and each one shows how many-sided a store of learning was kept in his head.

For nine years I was editor of the (periodical) Za pravdou (“For the Truth”); every week an issue of eight (large) pages came out. It was no small thing to fill eight pages. Contributions were few. How many times I came to the Vladyka on the evening before the paper’s deadline and told him that I had material for only two pages and still needed six more; he would smile, and in the morning he would hand me articles covering the missing six pages. And that was no empty straw-threshing! In every sentence of his there was depth. Besides religious subjects he could write passages from history, and he always brought new historical thoughts to the surface; he could write about public health, about the treatment of the mentally ill (on which he had a whole book prepared), about politics, music, schooling, the education of youth—in short, about everything.

If you charged me to speak of his activity, one might tell how he first tried to know and investigate every problem from all sides, going down into the smallest details, and then divided up the course of the work for himself. He always proceeded in stages and took position after position. It often seemed to us that the goal was unreachable; we were already hanging our heads; it seemed that he was losing—yes, he was losing—but then suddenly he prevailed. His struggle was always very hard. Enemies came from the front (of those there were fewest), from the left and from the right, and from behind—of those there were most. Indeed he wrote somewhere: “It often happened that one had to work with one hand and fight with the other at the same time, as the Israelites did when, after returning from the Babylonian captivity, they rebuilt Jerusalem.”

It is almost dreadful when I recall that nothing came easily to him. While, for example, Dr. Farský won with ease, Vladyka Gorazd had to overcome thousands of reefs and accept thousands of blows. At every step of his the devil was demolishing, destroying, and making his work impossible, tearing his best helpers away from him: Minister Isidor Zahradník died. Two days before he was to take up the chairmanship of the Czech Orthodox community, Brother Dr. Vacek was buried; scarcely had his acting vice-chairman taken up the same office when he took to his bed and never rose again; Father Ševčík died suddenly before he could take over the office of protopresbyter; Smrček departed, and Dr. Haškovec, and others and others. The government set itself against him; the authorities and the newspapers refused to publish his contributions, yet wrote against him; and so did corporations—for example, the teachers’ central body, which ordered the teaching profession to work against Orthodoxy.

When Vladyka Gorazd, as a very young student, took his school-leaving examination in 1905, he stood at life’s crossroads with two paths before him. One was attractive and passable, the other difficult and thorny; he did not hesitate even for a moment, and set out on that road at whose end there rose a great cross with the outstretched Saviour, who called: “If anyone would come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me”—and that cross did not leave him for his whole life. The Vladyka bore it patiently to his last breath on the place of execution… When I once reminded him of this and asked him how that came to be, he answered: “But I would say nothing more if I had somehow longed after that episcopal dignity.” He accepted the episcopal election in the spring and in August 1921 only temporarily. He categorically refused to go to Yugoslavia for consecration. I was present when the Vladyka became agitated as Brother Director Polešovský was persuading him to go. It was even awkward for me when, at the National House in Olomouc, there came to me at supper the envoy of His Holiness the Serbian Patriarch, Father Protodeacon Niketič (who was to take the Vladyka to Yugoslavia for hierarchical consecration), and told me that he must return to Yugoslavia empty-handed. And only when he came again did we compel the future Vladyka to go; I remember that I, as his secretary, fairly pushed Vladyka Gorazd—then Matěj Pavlík—into the train.

And after his consecration he had to endure battle after battle. First with Dr. Farský. When he had at least on Moravia secured his Orthodox position, he set out overseas—not on an excursion, but to obtain money for the maintenance of the Church; at that time the pamphlets that were to reach him arrived late, when he was already departing, and thus the hope of selling them came to nothing. He lived in great poverty and scarcely had money for the return journey. The sum of 60,000 Czechoslovak crowns which he had borrowed for the journey was thus lost. And while he was overseas, all his friends left him one after another. The struggle lasted until 31 August 1924, when the Czechoslovak Church at its third assembly proclaimed a new doctrine of faith and thereby fell away from Orthodoxy; those were dreadful days in Gorazd’s life. We breathed a sigh of relief in hope of better times—and meanwhile…

Scarcely had the struggle for Orthodoxy eased when again there arose a struggle over jurisdiction. How many journeys he made for that purpose to Vienna, Zadar, and Sremski Karlovci. I had to admire how wisely he proceeded before he could celebrate victory at Česká Třebová. Then came the struggle over the congrua (state clergy stipend). From 1 September 1924 until 1926 the priests lived on air—without pay. The Czechoslovak Church at that time spoke zealously against the congrua, although meanwhile the subsidy with which it was willing to be content brought it more than the congrua would have. How fatherly Gorazd behaved then. To accept the congrua meant to make the priests independent of the bishop; to accept a subsidy meant that the bishop would bind the priests to himself. And then the Vladyka declared: “I want my priests to be financially independent of me.” Only a true father can act thus.

Nor did he rest after that.

He declared: “Before I die, I want to see in every parish a church and a rectory.” He indeed lived to see those churches in all the parishes, but the building of a rectory only in Třebíč. Let us not think that he merely ordered this or that parish to build a church! He helped build them and gave enormous financial help. I do not know how much he gave for each church; I know only that for the one at Štěpánov he gave many thousands and came every little while to look. For the one at Opatov, which cost 47,000 Kč, he gave 4,500 Kč—that is, nearly 10%; for the Třebíč church he then gave from his own means 7,100 Kč and also provided the cement at his own expense.

And while the parishes were consolidating and building churches, he worked diligently in literature. He equipped the schools with textbooks. As a former catechist I can say that no Church has so perfect a catechism as ours. And if anyone speaks against it, he does so only because he has not understood the catechism, because he has no missionary spirit. The Roman Church has in its catechism doctrine and morals. So great and powerful a Church needs no more. But our Church, beaten and oppressed from every side, must give the schoolchild more than a Roman child needs; our child must be armed for life, so that he may not only know how to ward off blows but may also at once be able to point out to an attacker his errors or iniquities. The Vladyka—the martyr—put into the catechism apologetics as well, that is, a defense of the Orthodox Church and, consequently, also a knowledge of other churches and of their errors. And those who say that the catechism is too extensive show that they are very weak teachers of religion. A teacher of religion must delicately sense what from the catechism he will give to the youngest and what he will select from it for those who are leaving school. What worth Gorazd’s catechism has, our enemies tell us best. It was not the Orthodox who bought up the catechism, but Roman priests, and that for two reasons: (1) because they rightly recognized its great value, and (2) because they understood what danger it held for them if we were to teach according to it.

And I must recall one more of his publications. It is the Collection of the People’s Divine Liturgy. That is something no Church has; it is a thing for which the Roman Church longs. In the Roman Church there is a so-called liturgical movement, that is, that the faithful should celebrate Mass together with the priest. I have had in my hands their Czech and German attempts, but I must say: So great a Church, with so many learned heads—and yet none of them resolved this question so brilliantly as our bishop, small in stature but great in spirit. For the Romans, in their attempts, had the people recite individual parts of the service. That, however, is dull. I have heard people complain of it. Our Vladyka had only the Creed recited, and underlaid everything else with musical notation; and again, so that it should not be monotonous, every Sunday he has the people sing, according to the eight tones, the same text but always to a different melody, and further also the text that is special for each feast and Sunday. That is a great advantage.

Perhaps you might charge me to speak of other qualities of Gorazd’s. Well then, of his qualities—Gorazd in the catechism speaks of the virtues and teaches: there are divine and moral virtues; the divine are faith, hope, and love; and the moral: humility before God and modesty before people, generosity, purity of spirit and of body, favourable thinking of one’s neighbour, temperance, diligence and zeal in work and in prayer; and further he teaches that the chief good works are: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

To the brothers and sisters I can boldly say that the Vladyka—the martyr—possessed all these virtues and works in the highest measure.

You knew well his faith, hope, and love toward God and people—friends and enemies alike. He never allowed a lie about another Church, or a demagogic phrase, to be written in our periodical, while against us the fight was waged only with lies. That would be best proved by the Roman Archbishop Stojan, who said to a Roman priest who spoke against Gorazd from the pulpit in Olomouc: “Reverend Sir, I forbid you that; you are not worthy to loose the straps of Gorazd’s footwear.”

Gorazd’s humility was even excessive. The Vladyka had a little of the Moravian Slovak blood in him, so that he sometimes became very agitated. And thank God for that—it was sometimes needful. I took into my office a new helper—Mařenka Krylová. Once he came into the office and grew quite agitated that she had done something badly; he left, and in a little while he returned and before me asked her pardon. Who would be capable of that—to acknowledge one’s fault publicly and apologize to a subordinate clerk? He published a little book, Ss. Cyril and Methodius. No author need be ashamed of that book, but he did not sign it; indeed he used the pseudonym P. Malý—so humble and modest was he. And when he went to some celebration and it was necessary to put on all his decorations (and he had many of them!), how we had to persuade him to adorn himself with them—and yet anyone else would have done it gladly. He was so humble that many a time he wished to renounce his dignity and yield it to Vladyka Archbishop Savvatij, and so on. How he longed to withdraw into retirement and only write and work for the Church.

His generosity was well known; no one left him empty-handed. He supported all societies, several Sokol units, and even a society for the protection of animals. Some people knew how to profit a good deal from his kindness and generosity.

His love for others was proverbial; of another he thought only well. How the internal disagreements and disputes pained him, and how much he travelled in order to calm them!

Who ever saw him eat or drink much? How quiet and undemanding he was, attentive to others and tactful! He was unhappy when he had to admonish someone. He was faithful, honourable, and upright.

And last I would mention the virtue—zeal in work. He was almost indefatigable in work. No one received so many incoming letters as he, and he remained indebted in reply to none. He knew of every matter almost insignificant for the whole Church, yet every one was important to him and he resolved every one. In short, he had all the virtues—indeed more than he recorded in his catechism.

He had, however, also a virtue which, beside love of God, burned most in his heart: love of his country. His love of country was so great that it became fatal to him. He had been with me in Třebíč for a whole year when the Germans were occupying Austria. We stood by the radio. I saw how he suffered.

Then came the occupation. By then he was continually in Prague. You know best the activity of that time. On one visit he said to me: “We must now do something. The nation must recognize that we love our state not only in words but also in deeds, that we are truly a national Church.”

The patriotic Vladyka Gorazd bargained with no one over the nation and was ready rather to sacrifice himself and his child—the Church—upon the martyr’s altar than to sell his nation for a mess of pottage; indeed he went so far that he joined in work against the Germans. In that work, together with Fathers Vladimír and Václav, Brothers Jan Sonnevend and Václav Ornest, and the others, he fell—but honourably, so that on the basis of this work we can claim them as national heroes, martyrs for the homeland: Sonnevend, Vladimír, and Václav.

They have gone from us! On the Old Town Square I compared their departure with the departure of the twenty-seven Czech lords. While those were allowed to take leave of their dear ones, to leave a last message to the nation, and while they were allowed to make confession and be reconciled with God, these our heroes went without spiritual consolation and without leaving us a single message. We have nothing after them, but I think I am not far from the truth if I suppose that when the Vladyka was dying he called out a message similar to that which King Alexander left to his nation: “Guard Yugoslavia for me.” The martyr Vladyka called before his death: “Guard for me my Czech Orthodox Church.” We must comply with this last request of his and give all our strength to this idea. We must sacrifice every moment after our employment, every free thought, every free penny, so that the Church which Vl. Gorazd restored in our nation may flourish and grow in breadth and in depth. The Vladyka is looking upon us.

— + Josef Leixner; written in 1948

From the collection Pastor and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995) (Internet publication, September 2013)

Vladyka Gorazd and Our Press⌗

Czech original: Vladyka Gorazd a náš tisk

After a long time has passed since the tragic departure of Vladyka Gorazd, it is not easy to write about his journalistic work in our church press. There are almost no direct witnesses left, and surviving materials are likewise scarce. I shall try at least briefly to recall Vladyka Gorazd’s journalistic activity in the period when for several years I edited the periodical Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy until it was suppressed, and when I was in more frequent working contact with him.

I believe that for a closer understanding of Vladyka Gorazd’s journalistic and publicistic activity one must recall the beginnings of that activity, namely in Olomouc, where the Vladyka was the “soul and heart” of a great religious movement after the First World War. Vladyka Gorazd, as a good organiser, knew that alongside the living word there was also need of the written word—that is, of a press that would penetrate into the broadest strata of the people. He emphasised this need on every occasion at gatherings of the faithful. Thus at a church assembly in Přerov, at the initiative of Moravian delegates and of some Silesian religious communities, the diocesan paper For the Truth was founded, intended mainly for the needs of the church in Moravia and Silesia. The editorial and administrative offices of this periodical were in Olomouc, and Father Josef Leixner was listed as publisher and editor. For closer explanation it must be stated that the owner of this periodical was in reality Vladyka Gorazd, who financed the paper and also bore the risk of the print run. The Moravian–Silesian diocese at that time had no financial resources for publishing this periodical. The paper appeared weekly, and the first issue came out on 7 July 1921. In the article “Introductory Word,” whose author was Matěj Pavlík, later Vladyka Gorazd, it was explained why the periodical had been founded and what its content would be. The main task “will be to spur readers toward a genuine and sincere religious life, free of superstition, and to awaken a sense for religiosity in the sense of Christ,” the author of the article wrote. Besides organisational reports and instructions, the periodical carried reflections, articles and studies on all the serious questions of the religious movement of that time. With this content it appeared until 17 July 1924, when it ceased to be the diocesan paper of the then Czechoslovak Orthodox Church. Under the same title For the Truth it continued to appear until 31 December 1929, but already with a distinctly purely Orthodox content. The tireless worker on this periodical, to which he gave its distinctive character, was Vladyka Gorazd. His popular yet factual articles were received by readers with full understanding, attentively read and discussed.

After the establishment of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy for Bohemia and Moravia–Silesia in 1924, when the original movement of the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church divided into an independent Orthodox Church and the Czechoslovak Church, it was resolved after 1929 to publish for the needs of the church a periodical under the new title Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy. The first issue appeared on 16 January 1930 as a fortnightly. In the “Introductory Word” of that issue it was emphasised, among other things, that “the task of the paper is to be: the search for truth, the endeavour to go after the truth, the illumination of the truth and the pointing out of the way that leads to the truth.” The Bulletin was published in Prague, where the editorial office was also located; the administration was transferred to Brno, and it was printed by the Novina printing works. The editing of the periodical was undertaken by university professor Dr M. P. Haškovec; the administration and dispatch were taken over by the sisters Marie and Juliana Homolová. They performed their functions free of charge.

The chief contributor to the Bulletin was again Vladyka Gorazd who, despite his immense workload of literary activity, administrative and hierarchical duties, always still found time to write articles for the periodical. I recall how, when I later took over the editing of the periodical and was in more frequent contact with Vladyka Gorazd, he more than once complained of overwork and of the slight interest of some church workers in collaborating on the Bulletin.

The editing of the Bulletin was endangered by the unexpected death of Dr M. P. Haškovec. Few knew that he had long been unwell. He fulfilled his professorial, social and church duties until he went into hospital. After his death the question therefore arose who would continue to lead the periodical. In the end it was decided that I should take over the editing of the periodical until a final decision. Vladyka Gorazd asked me to do so and promised to discuss personally with me the further course of the work and his help. Fortunately, still during the lifetime of the late Dr M. P. Haškovec, with whom I lived in close friendly relations, I had helped him during his illness in arranging the contents of individual issues of the periodical, carried out proofreading and arranged everything needful with the printer. In the last months of Dr M. P. Haškovec’s life I was already editing the periodical independently. At first it was not easy work for me. Yet I received full help and advice from Vladyka Gorazd, and so I edited the Bulletin until it was suppressed by the occupation authorities. The last issue appeared on 1 July 1942.

During my editing of the Bulletin not a few changes took place in the content of the periodical. The needs of the time and the consolidation of the church required it. It was a very busy period, a time of intensive work in the church communities, as the reports and articles in the periodical attest. Vladyka Gorazd let no single opportunity pass without reporting on it in our church press. For me personally these were the finest experiences of collaboration with the Vladyka. We met ever more frequently, even if only when he was passing through Brno; we consulted about the contents of individual issues of the periodical and about administrative and financial difficulties. Vladyka Gorazd, though reluctantly, also consented to the publication of advertisements in the periodical, which helped to cover the printing costs.

In the autumn of 1936 fifteen years of Vladyka Gorazd’s work in our church had passed. I had to persuade him a great deal for this jubilee to be remembered also in the pages of the Bulletin. When I showed him some of the articles sent to the editorial office, he understood that it was impossible not to remember this work of his. Of the Vladyka’s modesty his words of thanks published in the November issue of that year’s volume bear the best witness. He writes in them: “…even in the future I can and will regard myself only as the forerunner of him who is to come after me. I am nothing but a missionary who prepares the way and who longs for nothing else than to be able to hand over to him who comes the Czech Orthodox eparchy as far as possible complete in clergy and in membership and in everything else.”

Thus there often appeared in the pages of the Bulletin unsigned articles from the pen of Vladyka Gorazd, in which he wrote about all questions of church life. His articles were truly outstanding stimuli and also found lively responses among the faithful.

In the last years Vladyka Gorazd devoted the most attention to our Orthodox youth, in whom he saw not only future members of the church but also co-workers and further builders of the church. When a church-wide organisation of Orthodox youth in the church communities came about, Vladyka Gorazd recommended to the editorial office of the Bulletin that space be provided in the periodical so that the youth too might express themselves in the press. He wished to raise from among young contributors future co-workers for the church press, and thus to engage them for more serious work in church life. For this purpose, therefore, a part of the Bulletin was set aside with an independent supplement, Youth Watch. In it, besides organisational reports of individual youth groups, articles, poems, reminiscences and the like were published. The youth themselves filled this column, and there were sometimes so many contributions that it was not possible to publish them all. The youth understood the Vladyka’s good intention and contributed with enthusiasm.

Dark clouds were brought by the ill-fated year 1938. Tragedy was approaching for our republic and our nations, and also for our Czech Orthodox Church. This was reflected in our church press as well. The memorable eparchial assembly of our church took place in Olomouc in June 1938. After Vladyka Gorazd’s festive address and after the speeches of other figures, there arose from this assembly a resolution as an expression of confidence in our state in the agitated and uncertain time that was approaching. The resolution was also published in a prominent place in the Bulletin. In the same issue Vladyka Gorazd wrote in his unsigned article on the right to national worship and on our Cyrillo-Methodian tradition: “It is necessary to deal with the question and to reach right down to its very roots—why the Elbe Slavs, the Pomeranians and others perished, why of the Lusatian Sorbs only insignificant remnants remain, why we Czechoslovaks and, parallel with us, the Poles, Slovenes and Croats have lost much to the advantage of the Germans, Hungarians and Italians—and why the Serbs, Bulgarians and Russians did not have such losses, even though they too were for certain periods long subjugated. This question has a vital significance for us, and we must not cease until its seriousness is realised and its solution is worked out by the whole nation.”

For us Orthodox faithful, after the collapse of the First Republic—an event that deeply struck the heart of every sincere and faithful citizen of our homeland—Vladyka Gorazd’s articles in the Bulletin provided great moral strengthening. In them the Vladyka expressed not only his ardent patriotism but also a deep faith in the victory of truth and justice. He urged concord, personal amendment, and the performance of duties connected with our family life, our belonging to the church and to the nation and to Slavdom. In the essay “Lift Up Your Hearts,” published in the November issue of the Bulletin in 1938, he writes among other things: “Our nation has been struck by a terrible blow unexpected in that extent by anyone… Yet we must not sink in spirit. It is never so bad that improvement cannot come. The main thing is to become aware of the causes of the fall. The cause is the betrayal of those on whom we relied. This we cannot—at least in the foreseeable future—make good, for it does not depend on us. But the course of events was also co-caused by our own nation, and these internal causes of the fall we must realise so that we may bring about amendment which is in our hands and is achievable if we truly rouse ourselves. Without recognition of our own faults and without their amendment we should not only fail to recover, but should go to meet a still worse future.”

In the same issue there was published yet another apt unsigned article, entitled “On 28 October 1938,” when for the first time censorship intervened. At that time we had to submit the made-up proofs of the periodical to the censorship department, which was located in U solnice Street. When I came for this censored issue, the censor Jiskra, whom I have forever remembered, told me that if we published similar articles he would be compelled to intervene harshly. I argued with him about the content of these articles and, in my ardour, influenced by our national tragedy, I voiced some arguments that so angered the censor that he began to bang on the table and shouted: “I’ll have you locked up. Either you will obey or…” I listened no further; I gathered the censored proofs from the table and left. When I told our compositor at the printing works about it, he was glad that I had not given in, but I had my whole day spoiled. By pure chance I preserved the censored proofs.

Mr Jiskra confiscated the following text: “Moreover the Roman Catholic Church has the chief share in the Germanisation of the Czech border regions, which then toward the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century led to the rise and stirring up of the so-called Sudeten German question. It is true that Czech kings called Germans into Bohemia, but mainly only into the towns and ore mines. These German colonists would not have endangered the Czech character of our state had the countryside not been flooded with German people—which is precisely what the Roman Catholic monasteries did, calling onto their vast complexes of land people from neighbouring Germany, partly deliberately, partly perhaps because they did not wish to wait until the domestic Czech population had sufficiently multiplied to be able to cultivate the monastic estates. Thus the northwest, west, southwest and south of Bohemia were Germanised by the administrations of the monasteries of Teplá, Chotěšov, Kladruby, Plasy, Zlatá Koruna and Vyšší Brod; the northeast by the administration of the monastery of Broumov; and the north then in the eighteenth century in another way by the bishops of Litoměřice. Present events are only the consequence of that Germanising activity, which I note merely as a historical fact without any recriminatory tendency whatever.”

I wrote the Vladyka a detailed letter about what had happened. The Vladyka replied at once that he would come to Brno to discuss with me the further course of the work. He asked that I speak to no one about this meeting.

We met at the Hotel Slávia, where the Vladyka usually stayed overnight when he was in Brno. We discussed the future content of the Bulletin and how to proceed so that in the end it should not come to its suppression. For it was then the only link with the Orthodox faithful. The Vladyka was worried, worn, but full of ardour and plans for the future. He said that now our clergy must each stand in his place, not be afraid, but be wise, encourage the faint-hearted and comfort those who had had to leave their places and their occupations in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Because they found themselves without means and the necessities of life, he helped them according to possibility until they found new posts. To this day I see the Vladyka’s feverish eyes; I hear his excited voice. He was truly a real rebel against Germanic arbitrariness and the weakness of some of our people, an ardent patriot and friend of the Slavs, a deeply believing man of pure character, who was prepared to sacrifice even his life. Not in vain did he used to say that he would wish to die as a martyr for the truth.

Life, however, went on, and with it also many difficulties. Troubles with the censorship increased and the censor diligently struck things out. Yet he would not allow blank spaces to be left in the periodical, so that it should not be apparent that something had been confiscated by the censorship. This made the compositor’s work harder and added to my worry over what to fill the type with. Experience taught me to cope with these difficulties by securing for every eventuality a censored but as yet unpublished setting. After each issue of the Bulletin appeared, one copy had to be sent to the censorship department for the purpose of checking.

After the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 it was ordered that official notices be published in the Bulletin. Therefore a column was introduced on the first page of the periodical: “Official Notices.” In May 1939 Vladyka Gorazd reached his sixtieth birthday. At his wish the remembrances of this significant jubilee were modest.

The Vladyka was then occupied with preparations for the consecration of the Orthodox church in Olomouc. It took place on 29 May with unprecedented participation of our faithful. The consecrators of the church were Metropolitan Dositej, delegated by the Serbian Orthodox Church, and Vladyka Gorazd. The consecration of the church became an eloquent national manifestation, an unforgettable church celebration. It was the Vladyka’s last consecration of a church, the last meeting with Metropolitan Dositej, the faithful and devoted collaborator of Vladyka Gorazd in the stirring times of the rise of the Orthodox Church among us, and a great friend of our nation. Both also laid down their lives for the church and the homeland. Vladyka Gorazd accepted martyrdom at the hands of the Germanic Nazi usurpers, and Metropolitan Dositej at the hands of fanatical Ustaše.

In our remembrance of holy Vladyka Gorazd it is certainly fitting also here to recall his precious collaborator Bishop Dositej (one year older than Bishop Gorazd), a highly educated Orthodox Serbian bishop who well knew the intellectual currents of Europe and understood the orientation of the Czech and Moravian neo-reformers of that time (the nascent movement of the Czechoslovak Church after the First World War), and thus became a kind of bridge in negotiations between them and the Serbian Orthodox Church; how enthusiastically and with love he was received by the Czech people in the countryside, especially in Moravian communities, is attested by the contemporary press; on the other hand the opponents of the Czech inclination toward Orthodoxy never forgot this work of the Vladyka’s—in this connection let us recall here the martyr’s end of Vladyka Dositej. “Professor Kašić mentions the last years of Vladyka Dositej’s life on the basis of documents in the book Memorial of Orthodox Priests—Victims of Fascist Terror and Those Fallen in the National Liberation Struggle: ‘The war found Metropolitan Dositej in Zagreb in his residence… On 10 April 1941 he was arrested by the Ustaše and with his deacon Lazar Živadinović cast into the prison of the Zagreb police… Because he was ill, he was transferred to the hospital of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy. Instead of treatment the Sisters of Mercy tortured and humiliated him. Almost every day he was whipped and beaten; they tore out his whole beard (that is, all his whiskers). This affected him so heavily that he became nervously ill. He was transferred to Belgrade as seriously ill and treated in a sanatorium. As a consequence of severe suffering he died in the Monastery of the Presentation of the Lord in Belgrade on 14 January 1945.’ Vladyka Dositej was of course not the only victim of Croatian nationalism joined with the clericalism of the then Roman Catholic Church. There is, however, no doubt that in his case it was revenge for everything that he, as bishop—delegate of the Serbian Orthodox Church—had done in Czechoslovakia in building Orthodoxy after the First World War. The name of Metropolitan Dositej ought not to fall into oblivion among us.” (From the article “Remembrance of Metropolitan Dositej” by Protopresbyter Pavel Aleš; published in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 8, 1990, p. 178.)

In September 1940 the consecration of the church in Třebíč took place (here there will be video from the film record of this event), which Vladyka Gorazd could not attend because of illness. It was also the last greater manifestation of our faithful in the times of the beginning deep humiliation of our nation. In issue 8 of the Bulletin in 1941, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of his hierarchical consecration, the Vladyka turned in an extensive article to our Orthodox faithful with a remarkable appeal. The article bore the title “Brothers and Sisters,” and began thus: “On Sunday the 21st of September of this year twenty years will have passed since that day when for the Orthodox Czechs, after a thousand years, their own bishop was appointed and ordained by the laying on of hands. The voice of my heart commands me to remind you of the significance of this anniversary. I feel, however, constrained by the circumstance that to this most responsible church activity I, an insufficient servant of God, was called.” The extensive article, which is a kind of reckoning of the Vladyka’s work in the church which he so loved and for which he sacrificed himself, still gives some advice and instructions, and ends with words so characteristic of Vladyka Gorazd: “I ask you all not to grow weary in the work, but to help me carry out the hard and responsible life’s task that God has laid upon me. Let us all work as God’s servants in much patience, in purity, in watching, in sincere love, in the Holy Spirit and in the power of God. Let us everywhere and always confess our Orthodox faith.”

After the attack of the Hitlerite hordes on the Soviet Union in June 1941, life among us became harder and more complicated, the Germanic fascists more insolent and brutal. This was reflected also in the religious life of our church, toward which there was distrust because of sympathies for the Slavs. Our church press suffered from this as well. Though there were difficulties with the censorship, everything we did we did gladly, only that the Bulletin might appear. It was our only spiritual weapon, which encouraged us and poured into hearts the faith that we were not alone, that in the end truth and justice must triumph. The Vladyka came to Brno only now and then. There were, however, more written contacts, often only in catchwords, written in haste. Vladyka Gorazd was then working on a book from whose publication, when the time came, he promised himself much. Part of its manuscript has been preserved, but the book, because of extra-ecclesiastical circumstances, never appeared.¹ I recall with what ardour the Vladyka spoke of it when he once passed through Brno and asked me to wait for him. We met in front of the station and during the wait for the connecting train went into the then Hotel Padowetz opposite the station. The owner of the hotel was a German; when I pointed this out to the Vladyka, he waved his hand and said—why be afraid? We sat down in a booth by the window and quietly talked about the book for which the Vladyka was gathering material. Suddenly he fell silent. For a while he looked out of the window, and then he says: “Look.” I looked where he was pointing, and I see a formation of German “heroes” marching, bawling some song. The Vladyka smiled slyly and says: “Just wait—the Russians will thrash you until you feel sick from it.” At that time, however, the situation for the Soviet Union was still bad, but the Vladyka despite that firmly believed that the Hitlerites would lose the war in Russia.

When I took leave of the Vladyka at the train, he told me that for us clergy a hard trial would soon come, in which we must at all costs stand firm and fear nothing. Then we still pressed hands, and it was already for the last time. On the way home many conjectures whirled in my mind as to what the Vladyka still wanted to say and did not say, or perhaps could not yet say. The events after the Heydrichiad then suggested much to me.

It was not the only saying of the Vladyka’s attesting that he knew of his approaching martyr’s end; let us cite here yet another similar testimony: “The blessed Vladyka spent his last Christmas with us. He recalled his friends… and told us of the joyful and painful moments of his life… Whole days he would work uninterruptedly on his work and continually asserted: ‘I have far too much to write, but I must be finished with it by September.’ He continually asserted this, as if he sensed that then he would already not be able to finish it” (from the reminiscences of J. Šembera).

On 1 June 1942 the periodical Bulletin appeared for the last time. For our church it was not only a hard blow but also a time of deep darkness. My long years of editing the Bulletin ended, and I was sorry for something. Of all the cares, difficulties and work connected with it I recalled with a warming feeling that I had at least in something helped the Vladyka. After the suppression of the periodical, as if something were telling me to remove all correspondence that might become unpleasant for the further fate of the church. It was not possible to read through everything, especially the Vladyka’s extensive correspondence with me. The Gestapo seized on every trifle, every little word. And indeed, soon thereafter I was summoned to appear at the Gestapo. I went there with strange feelings. I said to myself: do not talk much and be careful with answers. The interrogation was conducted with all German thoroughness. Among other things they were interested in the question why we had been in connection with the Serbian Church, what contacts we still had with it, and the like. What was our relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and whether we had any contacts with it. Then the interrogator summoned me to hand over all correspondence from the editorial office of the Bulletin, the addresses of subscribers and other things. I handed over little of it, and that still of insignificant things. They did not trust me. Later they carried out a thorough search of my flat, but found nothing.

At the end of these reminiscences I should still like to say what Vladyka Gorazd saw in the Orthodox press. First of all a tribune and a weapon against attacks on Orthodoxy and against ignorance. Then he regarded our press as an important educational means, providing the possibility for a broad community of readers not only to learn something from reading but also to express in the press their views on church questions that then stirred the mind of our believing person. The Vladyka emphasised at the same time that our church press does not serve and does not wish to serve church-political and power tendencies in our nation, but the pure idea of the Gospel—that which enlightened our nation in the days of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Therefore he recommended and strove that church press and publications should reach every Orthodox family, so that those who are distant from the reach of church communities might learn of the life of the church and thus live with it. Especially to our Orthodox youth he recommended taking an interest in our press and enlivening it with their own contributions. The youth understood this thought of the Vladyka’s, as the column Youth Watch in the then Bulletin attests. Thus there grew up among the youth new co-workers in our church press; unfortunately unfavourable circumstances under the occupation made their flight impossible.

I should still like to add that my collaboration in editing the Bulletin with Vladyka Gorazd was joyful. The Vladyka was not only a diligent contributor but also a good counsellor and teacher with whom it was always possible to discuss and agree, even if our views sometimes differed. The Vladyka had a great education and rich life experience. He was a prudent organiser, tireless in work, when he often forgot himself, thinking only of his duties, of the church. Also anyone who more frequently associated with Vladyka Gorazd was astonished by his tirelessness, and one asked oneself the question: where does he take the strength and time for all that activity.

All this his endeavour sprang from a great love for Orthodoxy, for the nation and for Slavdom. It grew from his great moral strength and personal courage, and boundless self-sacrifice that feared no sacrifices. These noble and exemplary character traits of Vladyka Gorazd manifested themselves not only in his literary activity but in all his many-sided work for the Czech Orthodox Church and for the development and strengthening of Slavic Orthodoxy in our nation. The qualities of an ardent apostle predetermined him for the crowning conclusion of a life which he sacrificed on the Nazi execution ground as an undaunted fighter for the freedom of his nation, so that even by his martyr’s death he proved the wondrous unity of his whole life and of all his work. And in that Vladyka Gorazd remains a lasting example and a lasting reminder for all who feel love for Orthodoxy as an inseparable part of their relation to the nation and the homeland.

Note:

In 1987 there was published in Olomouc the manuscript of a book written by St Gorazd in the summer months of 1940 under the title Guide to the Cathedral Church of Saint Gorazd (I) in Olomouc (it is essentially brief lives of the saints who are depicted on the icons of the Orthodox church in Olomouc); the first volume of further manuscript remains was published under the care of Protopresbyter Pavel Aleš in 1988 under the title: Bishop Gorazd—From His Works; further parts of the literary remains of the holy Vladyka are being prepared for publication.

— K. J. Rosák, 1969 / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Vladyka Gorazd, the Righteous One and Martyr⌗

Czech original: Vladyka Gorazd, spravedlivec a mučedník

Vladyka Gorazd, the Righteous One⌗

(in the resistance against the German fascists; a collage of reflections and reminiscences)

Let us pause at one trait of Gorazd’s character: his sense of justice and of right. The sense of justice was understood by him as a sense of the responsibility of a person to whom any talent whatever has been entrusted, for the simple person. From this there then flowed for Gorazd also a sense of right in the state… In the fateful years of Munich and of the beginnings of the occupation he bore very heavily that our state did not offer resistance to the Nazi invader. “We ought to have defended ourselves”—he declared after 15 March 1939, and this sentence in his mouth did not mean merely a bitter noting of the fact in a subjugated land, but above all indignation that from our people, without their knowledge, there had been taken away the right to defend and uphold their existence, and that this right had not been granted them by those who ought to have granted it.

Therefore on 28 October 1938 he sends to all Orthodox patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops a message as a protest against the decision “about us without us,” and as the endeavour of an Orthodox Christian to stir public world opinion from simple people up to statesmen for the salvation of the national existence, sovereignty and distinctiveness of our nations. This message is one of the most significant documents of the struggle for our national independence.

When then 15 March 1939 came, Vladyka Gorazd encourages his faithful (by the letter Brothers and Sisters published in the Bulletin 4/39) with the assurance that a nation which does not itself renounce its national consciousness, its national and cultural life, cannot be destroyed by anything or anyone. Therefore he summons the faithful to still greater mutual solidarity and fellowship, for he is convinced that our Orthodox Church is the firmest foundation not only of religious but also of national life. “It will be the duty of our nation, upon the loss of sovereignty, not to despair, but within the framework of autonomy manfully to care for its national life and not to think that someone else will take over this care for it… If any nation has perished, it has always caused it for the greater part first of all itself… We lay it upon your hearts that you not give yourselves overmuch to gloomy thoughts, which would not only in no way benefit the nation but on the contrary would cripple the capacity for creative work of which all Czechs will now have so much need” (from the letter Brothers and Sisters; further selected parts of this open letter of St Gorazd to all his people).

From here Vladyka Gorazd began to work against the whole system determined by the Nazi occupation and collaboration with it. One of the expressions of the Vladyka’s resistance was also his work on the penetration of aggressive Germanism into the Czech lands. To his friends he said in the first months of 1942 that he must be finished with the work by the end of September, as if he sensed that he would already not live to see the end of that month… (From Čestmír Kráčmar’s book Memorial Service for the Brave).

The Vladyka once expressed that he would wish his Orthodox to love their church even unto martyrdom. “Every great idea,” the Vladyka said to me, “becomes firm and lasting only through the sacrifices brought.” To this the Vladyka still remarked that he himself wishes that he might be able to suffer for his nation and the Orthodox Church, so as thus to prove that his words had not been mere words, that they had always been meant with all seriousness and responsibility! (From the reminiscences of F. Petržilka of a meeting with the Vladyka in April 1942).

September 1938. We followed the news with the Vladyka and considered how our state representatives would behave, how it would turn out with us when no one stands up for us. Then the Vladyka used to say: “I know the Germans; no agreement with them is possible.” And when the general mobilisation came, of course he approved it. That morning we prayed in the church… the prayer at the attack of enemies upon the homeland… He then ordered the spiritual fathers to pray the prayer publicly with the faithful at every divine service. I know how the Vladyka was ardent that we should defend ourselves and not give in, that we should show the Germans that we are descendants of the Hussites… When the Germans occupied us, then the Vladyka bore it heavily and declared how it was most unjust and humiliating when even purely Czech regions were seized. And again he emphasised that we ought rather to have defended ourselves with weapon in hand and fallen honourably than to endure such disgrace. And then he used to say that he would be willing to sacrifice his life if it were necessary. — “I should indeed still like to work for the church, but if it were necessary, I shall sacrifice myself” (From the reminiscences of B. Aleš).

The Vladyka in a letter to Serbia predicted the early fall of the German empire and offered the Serbian patriarch that he would supply him with political reports from the Berlin meetings of Orthodox bishops.

According to the testimony of A. Krejčí (a long-time personal friend of Vl. Gorazd), the Vladyka was preparing—with the thoroughness innate to him—for illegal work in the resistance and began organising underground activity. A spiritual figure of the Roman Catholic Church, Prelate S., who was the first asked for help with hiding the assassins who removed Heydrich, did not find in himself the strength to provide it (according to Sonnevend’s account, having learned where the knot of this terrible affair was, almost crushed by the weight of the secret, he bitterly lamented that so terrible a communication had been made to him when “he is a priest whom neither secular nor church laws allow to hide assassins…”). Bishop Gorazd knew of the failure with Prel. S., but despite that, after conversation and closer information from the executors of the assassination about the whole matter, he decided that the premises of the Orthodox church of Cyril and Methodius in Resslova Street, equipped with suitable cellar passages, would be placed at their disposal as a safer hiding place. He saw no other way out for them, and in further searching for a hiding place he saw a growing danger of betrayal.

[Here is the testimony of Protopresbyter Bohumír Aleš: I spoke with Vladyka Gorazd for the last time in the spring of 1942. He was with us in Moravia and was arranging some things before a journey to Berlin, where he had been invited by the then Archbishop of Berlin, Seraphim. He complained greatly how reluctantly he was preparing for the journey. He then had a great fear for the church. He continually thought about one thing: if something happened, how would the clergy and the faithful stand? He was aware of the consequences that could cause a complete crippling of the administrative course of the church and of its religious and spiritual life. He considered and pondered, indeed actually evaluated all of us clergy, whose nature, character, positive and shady character traits and family circumstances he well knew. What would they probably do in a moment of danger for the church—would they not fail? He expressed quite openly his standpoint toward his own life—he is willing, if need be, to sacrifice himself and give his life for the good and salvation of the church (HP no. 7, 1957).]

Meanwhile the Germans drove an ever more frenzied attack upon the nerves of the Czech nation and spread even in the remotest villages threats that every tenth Czech man would be murdered and communities would be burned en masse if the perpetrators of the assassination were not found. When these threats remained vain, 300 of the most proven Prussian secret policemen were summoned. With them Prague was infested… The searching net began threateningly to approach the areas of Prague in which lived families and people who had conscious or involuntary contacts with the hiding of the heroes. I drew Bishop Gorazd’s attention to this… It had been his custom that when he departed on longer journeys abroad he always handed over to me his written last will, of which he designated me the executor. Upon return I always gave it back to him again. But that day he handed it over to me even though he was preparing for a journey only to Plzeň.

I thereby took note that he was reckoning with the uttermost consequences. Immersed in an armchair, he was silent and thought. After a while he said that the situation was indeed immensely serious, but that the Czech Orthodox Church could not draw back before a situation according to whose solution the character and capacity for sacrifice of the whole nation would be judged after the war. He emphasised that even if the assassination exacted enormous sacrifices from Czech people, among whom he too might be, the historical significance of the removal of Heydrich was indisputable… He pointed to the heroic examples of Serbian Orthodox priests and to the resistance of the whole Serbian nation against the German invaders.

The day after, the hiding place of the assassins was betrayed and the storming of the crypt by the Germans began. The Vladyka, who was not in Prague and did not know of it, at that time procured a periscope to facilitate vigilance and in that connection asked for the measurements of the little window into the crypt where the soldiers were hiding (ed. note).

Bishop Gorazd arrived on the third day in Prague. He had no permanent residence here and therefore perhaps for several days yet after the uncovering of the heroes’ hiding place he was not arrested. We met by agreement in the park at Vyšehrad. He was immensely sorry for the people who after the uncovering of the church hiding place would lose their lives. But again he said that that task had been allotted to the Orthodox Church and its clergy by a higher power and that it had not been possible to proceed otherwise if the honour of the nation and the interests of the resistance movement were not to suffer. “Had we not granted those boys a hiding place and help, scarcely would anyone in the future then wish to sacrifice himself for the national whole.”

Bishop Gorazd expressed great regret that it had not been granted him to carry out with the brave heroes another plan of which he had spoken with them. I do not know reliably what he had in mind…

After the conversation on the Vyšehrad ramparts, which was the last that rang out in Bishop Gorazd with a firm resolve to stand for the good cause of the nation until the last moment of life, he still sought out in the Ministry of Justice Senior Counsellor Dr F. Novák to ask him for certain information…

Now it was a matter of how to prevent a further branching of the affair and further mass arrests of persons. Fortunately the relatively long leaving of Vladyka Gorazd at liberty enabled him to carry out some important measures and warnings.

The worst events overtook him precisely while finishing the last formal work on his scholarly work (ed. note).

Bishop Gorazd, a faithful son of Moravian Slovácko, sprouted from the true grain of Moravia, does not wish passively to bear the lot of a subjugated Czech person. In the true sense of patriotism and religion he seeks the resolution of a transitional conflict of conscience—whether he may or must fight with a weapon that under the heavy bondage of the nation appears as the only possible and effective instrument against evil. He arrives at the result that he must fight and resolves upon underground activity.

When E. Moravec in the function of so-called Minister of Enlightenment summoned him to bind himself to loyalty and support of the policy of the Protectorate government, Bishop Gorazd answered him with the words of the Apostle Paul: we shall obey every government that is lawful. E. Moravec shouted angrily at the Orthodox Vladyka that that was not enough, that it was an ambiguous answer. But he gave him no answer…

When he was putting together his friends for underground work, he promised himself much from Moravians. Among Orthodox people he took note of the most reliable and planned the tasks with which he would entrust them. He was convinced that it would be the Soviet army that would first penetrate through the Carpathians into Moravia, where it must find the population prepared for joining in the final liberating action. The action was to take place simultaneously in Bohemia. Again he relied most on his people from the church, though he did not exclude the participation of any brave and capable force.

Today, after this finding, many of Gorazd’s acquaintances will certainly realise why in the last months of his life he travelled so much and devoted himself to so many confidential missions.

When he had the organisation roughly prepared he sought a suitable place for himself from which he might direct it without being too far from Prague… Together we realised that we were on one track, certainly with many and many other underground workers who sought in the Nazi mass, gripping our nation for six years, some hollow by which to gnaw their way to the final goal: to freedom!

May the Orthodox church (in Resslova Street) by merit become a place of pilgrimage for all liberated Czech people, for here the first mighty blows of our national resistance rang out! (Selected from the lecture of Alois Krejčí “On the Resistance of Bishop Gorazd” delivered at the first meeting of the board of elders of the Orthodox church community in Prague, held on 1 June 1945; from Čestmír Kráčmar’s book Memorial Service for the Brave).

Literature:

Čestmír Kráčmar, Memorial Service for the Brave; published by the Metropolitan Council of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia; Prague 1989.

Reminiscences of Vladyka Gorazd were printed in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 5, 1949.

The Martyrdom of the Holy Vladyka⌗

(a collage from the reminiscences of contemporaries)

Before the critical days the Vladyka thought of departing abroad, but then he rejected that and nevertheless remained with us (from the reminiscences of J. Šembera).

He offered his life to the German fascists for his church, that it might not be further persecuted. (In vain).

After Gorazd’s arrest toward the end of June 1942 the Germans strove with all their strength to make the last days of Vladyka Gorazd truly the hardest. His fellow prisoners related how barbarously they treated him even at meals, when the poor Vladyka could not hold the bowl of food in his trembling hands. I do not doubt that the Vladyka sought and found in those days strengthening in prayer, but humanly he certainly lived through days of the greatest human humiliation (from the reminiscences of Dr V. A. Červín).

In 1947 the commissar of the Prague Gestapo charged with investigating the arrested members of the Czech Orthodox Church was interrogated. He testified that Vladyka Gorazd during interrogations was tortured, brutally beaten and dragged by the beard about the room. The resistance worker L. Šrámek, imprisoned in Pankrác prison at that time, testified that “the Vladyka was always around 10 p.m. taken away for interrogation and returned completely exhausted only around five o’clock in the morning. He was so weakened that he could not even take the prison food, distributed in great haste. For the prisoners had to scoop up food quickly from great pots; the Vladyka, weakened and poorly seeing, reached with trembling hands for the food, which was often carried away before he had scooped it up. His trembling hands did not reach the food and he was then kicked by the Gestapo warder for taking so long, and left without food…”

Mrs Šemberová during interrogation in Petschek Palace saw through open doors in one room Vladyka Gorazd at interrogation; he sat on a chair without coat and without waistcoat and was red in the face. After the doors were closed she heard the Vladyka’s strong cries. After a longer time he was led away in the company of two Gestapo men with bowed head and was so tormented that he did not even notice that she greeted him… “That I am alive with my wife I owe only to the blessed tortured Vladyka Gorazd and Father Dr Petřek, who betrayed nothing about me” (from the reminiscences of J. Šembera).

On Thursday 3 September 1942 the holy Vladyka together with his companions was condemned to death, and on Friday 4 September 1942 he was executed at the Kobylisy military shooting range. One of Gorazd’s fellow martyrs, Father Petřek, was executed still a day later, and in the records of the executioners there has been preserved a report of his dignified behaviour at the execution—“before and during the execution calm, without expression.” We know that two days before that he refused to submit a petition for the granting of clemency; he only prayed agitatedly—he was exhausted, worn out, beaten down, but unbroken; his eyes spoke of the victory of the spirit, his lips quietly prayed… (Thus a fellow prisoner of Father Vladimír recalled his last day in the cell.) The bodies of the holy martyrs were burned and the ashes mixed with the remains of thousands of others… We therefore do not have the holy relics of the new martyr Gorazd and of his companions in martyrdom—similarly as the relics of Master Jan Hus, of Master Jerome of Prague; the same fate also befell the relics of the most famous national saint of the mother Serbian Church—Sava.

His incorrupt relics were burned by the fierce occupier of Serbia—the Turkish commander Sinan Pasha on 27 April 1594 on the hill called Vračar (at present a cathedral was being built on that place).

Hus’s emblem, moreover, the delegation accompanying the Vladyka on his journey to Serbia to obtain episcopal consecration had on its banner (beside the Cyrillo-Methodian cross); and Serbia indeed took as its own “these two titans,” as the Serbian newspapers called Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, “who tried to renew Orthodoxy in their country, but their attempt… was like a seed that only in our days blossoms and brings forth fruit.” When the delegation entered with the Hussite banner into the assembly hall, the Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović unobtrusively approached that banner and kissed it; this bishop (whom many today also regard as a saint; he suffered in the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau) foretold to the newly consecrated Bishop Gorazd the cup of bitterness which the Orthodox faith is—Christ’s cup of suffering, at whose bottom, however, heavenly bliss is found.

Thus there came about a spiritual joining of Jan Hus, the Serbian national saint Sava, and the new renewer of Orthodoxy among us, Gorazd II—a joining through grafting onto the Cyrillo-Methodian stem of original martyr Christianity. The prophecy of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović was fulfilled. (Martyrs are then found also among the consecrators of St Gorazd.)

Literature:

Hlas Pravoslaví no. 5, 1949.

Čestmír Kráčmar, Memorial Service for the Brave; published by the Metropolitan Council of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia, Prague 1989; also in HP 5/57.

Protopresbyter Pavel Aleš: Seventy Years Ago; Orthodox Calendar 1991, p. 53.

The account of Father Petřek’s fellow prisoner printed in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 7, 1957.

— From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

The Martyrdom of the Holy Vladyka⌗

Czech original: Mučednictví svatého vladyky

(A collage from the recollections of contemporaries)

Before the critical days the Vladyka considered that he ought to leave for abroad, but then he rejected that and after all remained with us (from the recollections of J. Šembera). 1)

He offered his life to the German fascists for his Church, that it might not be further persecuted. (In vain.)

After Gorazd’s arrest toward the end of June of the year 1942, the Germans strove with all their strength to make the last days of Vladyka Gorazd truly the hardest. His fellow prisoners related how barbarously they treated him even at meals, when the poor Vladyka could not hold the bowl of food in his trembling hands. I do not doubt that in those days the Vladyka sought and found strength in prayer, but humanly he certainly lived through days of the greatest human humiliation (from the recollections of Dr. V. A. Červín). 1)

In the year 1947 the commissioner of the Prague Gestapo charged with the investigation of the arrested members of the Czech Orthodox Church was interrogated. He testified that Vladyka Gorazd was tortured during interrogations, brutally beaten and dragged by the beard about the room. The resistance worker L. Šrámek, imprisoned at that time in the Pankrác prison, testified that “the Vladyka was always taken away for interrogation around 10 o’clock in the evening and returned completely exhausted only around five o’clock in the morning. He was so weakened that he could not even take the prison food, which was distributed in great haste. For the prisoners had to scoop the food quickly from large pots; the Vladyka, weakened and poorly seeing, reached with trembling hands for the food, which was often carried away before he had scooped it. His trembling hands did not reach the food, and he was then kicked by the Gestapo guard because it took him so long, and left without food…” 2)

Mrs. Šemberová, during an interrogation at Peček Palace, saw through open doors in one room Vladyka Gorazd during an interrogation; he was sitting on a chair without a coat and without a vest and was red in the face. After the doors were closed she heard the Vladyka’s loud cries. After a longer time he was led away in the escort of two Gestapo men with bowed head and was so tormented that he did not even notice that she was greeting him… “That I and my wife are alive I owe only to the blessed martyred Vladyka Gorazd and to Father Dr. Petřek, who revealed nothing about me” (from the recollections of J. Šembera). 1)

On Thursday, 3 September 1942, the holy Vladyka together with his companions was condemned to death, and on Friday, 4 September 1942, he was executed at the Kobylisy military shooting range. One of Gorazd’s fellow martyrs, Father Petřek, was executed still a day later, and in the records of the executioners there has been preserved a report of his dignified behaviour at the execution—“before and during the execution calm, without demonstration.” We know that two days before that he refused to submit a petition for the granting of clemency; he only prayed agitatedly—he was exhausted, worn out, beaten down, but unbroken; his eyes spoke of the victory of the spirit, his lips prayed quietly… (Thus a fellow prisoner of Father Vladimir recalled his last day in the cell. 4)) The bodies of the holy martyrs were burned and the ashes mixed with the remains of thousands of others… We therefore do not have the holy relics of the New Martyr Gorazd and of his companions in martyrdom—similarly as the relics of Master Jan Hus, of Master Jerome of Prague; the same fate also befell the relics of the most glorious national saint of the mother Serbian Church—Sava.

His incorrupt relics were burned by the fierce occupier of Serbia—the Turkish commander Sinan Pasha—on 27 April 1594 on the hill called Vračar (at present a cathedral has been built on that place).

Hus’s emblem, moreover, was carried (beside the Cyrillo-Methodian cross) on its banner by the delegation accompanying the Vladyka on his journey to Serbia to receive episcopal consecration; and Serbia indeed took these two “titans” as its own, as the Serbian newspapers called Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, “who attempted to restore Orthodoxy in their country, but their attempt… was like a seed that only in our days blossoms and brings forth fruit.” When the delegation entered the assembly hall with the Hussite banner, the Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović inconspicuously approached that banner and kissed it; this bishop (even today many consider him a saint; he suffered in the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau) foretold to the newly consecrated Bishop Gorazd the cup of bitterness which is the Orthodox faith, Christ’s cup of suffering, at the bottom of which, however, heavenly bliss is found. 3)

Thus there came about a spiritual, mysterious joining of Jan Hus, of the Serbian national saint Sava, and of the new restorer of Orthodoxy among us, Gorazd II—a joining through grafting into the Cyrillo-Methodian stem of the original martyred Christianity. The prophecy of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović was fulfilled. We find martyrs also among those who consecrated St. Gorazd.

Literature:

1.) Hlas Pravoslaví no. 5, 1949.

2.) Čestmír Kráčmar, “Panychida for the Brave”; published by the Metropolitan Council of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia, Prague 1989; also in HP 5/57.

3.) Prot. Pavel Aleš: Seventy Years Ago; Orthodox Calendar 1991, p. 53.

4.) The account of Father Petřek’s fellow prisoner printed in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 7, 1957.

From the collection “Shepherd and Martyr” (Olomouc 1992–1995) (Internet publication September 2013)

The Holy Martyr Gorazd and His Legacy⌗

Czech original: Svatý mučedník Gorazd a jeho dědictví

(A view of today’s generation of clergy)

To those who already set out on the pilgrimage of seeking the one Truth and of journeying toward salvation, two paths suddenly open. One narrow, full of affliction, full of self-denial, climbs to heaven; the other broad, full of self-satisfaction, comfort and pleasant dreams, pleasantly slopes down into the bowels of hell… Almost everyone who sets out on the path to the Truth has certain ideas of it—what it ought to be—and these ideas are usually alluring and pleasant (understandably, for that is why for the most part one enters upon the path that promises the attainment of the Truth). Soon, however, there comes the oppressive moment of decision—then a part of the Truth, of our goal, is revealed to us, and precisely in that moment we stand at the crossroads and hesitate which way to take further. The longed-for Truth, to which we were prepared to dedicate our life, has slightly unveiled its face to us, and we find that it is quite other than we had imagined. Which way will our further path go? After the Truth, whatever it may be, or after our ideas? We are under trial. What have we loved more? The Truth, or our dreamed idea of it? At this crossroads seekers of the spiritual are refined and divided into enthusiasts who are not worthy of the Truth, and into true pilgrims into the heavenly Kingdom of God’s Truth, who have the courage to deny themselves, to let their inner self die, in order to gain true life in the Truth. Upon the path to heaven the weak who are unprepared to bring sacrifices for the gaining of the Kingdom of God cannot enter.

A multitude of pilgrims reject the inconvenient revelation of the Truth and choose the broad, pleasant path; they thus succumb to deception and allow themselves to be entangled in the spider’s webs of illusion. A smaller part of people at that moment painstakingly abandon the beloved idea of the Truth, its pleasing depiction of how the Truth ought to look; these accept the inconvenient revelation of the Truth for love of the Truth itself—of Him who Himself is the Truth—of Jesus Christ; then there awaits them a further laborious path to a further crossroads, where they will again decide—either for further difficult affliction for Christ or for cunning relief.

This is one of the fundamental rules of Christian spiritual life, as it is revealed by the holy Gospel, and as it is handed down by the holy Tradition of Christ’s Church. Already this very fundamental Gospel instruction is a partial unveiling of the Truth and sounds to many downright repulsive; it is a stumbling-block to them, for they are in the power of diabolical deception, being convinced that spiritual growth toward salvation can and ought to be something comfortable, merry and joyful—for they confuse the delicate spiritual joy that refreshes us in suffering for Christ with bodily sensual rejoicing and good mood in the American style of “keep smiling” (“always with a smile”).

We see the holy martyr Gorazd (Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia–Silesia, † 1942) as one of those rare people who consciously walk the narrow path full of pain, hardship, self-denial, continual dying within—dying to themselves and the painful being born for the living Truth, for Christ. St Gorazd heeded the instruction of the Apostle Paul exhorting us to offer ourselves to God as a living sacrifice, to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God through reasonable (understand—spiritual, inner) service to the Lord (Rom. 12:1). He well understood the holy apostle who in Holy Scripture says: “Do not be conformed to this age (that is, to this present world), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). Over the astonishing life of the martyr Gorazd there hovers the legacy of his father, who still in his youth said to him: “Never fear anything, and when you have the truth, do not yield.”¹

It was not easy to fulfil this paternal bequest, just as it is not easy to remain in this world faithful to the truth once known. Clinging to this principle truly made this earthly life bitter for him, but it gave him birth for eternal life.

In the life destinies of the holy Vladyka we see how in his inner being he struggled for the knowledge of the one real Truth; in this struggle he did not spare himself. Thus we follow his spiritual growth in the times when he was still a Roman Catholic with promising prospects in the Catholic hierarchy. In the service of the Truth known he did not spare his strength or his health in serving suffering people, until this struggle for perfection in the service of God, for further spiritual knowledge and growth, brought him to the limit of a person’s bodily and psychic possibilities—almost to bodily self-destruction; among those around him he gained by this tireless patient zeal in serving the mentally ill and the wounded from the battlefields of the First World War a deep respect, and already at that time a hint of the reputation of holiness begins to surround him. St Gorazd—himself heavily bodily ill and moreover exhausted by depleting service to neighbours—did not fear bodily weakness, for he had an example in Christ Himself; he knew concerning Him the words of the apostle in Holy Scripture: “He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, but in dealing with you we will live with Him by the power of God…” (2 Cor. 13:4).

Vladyka Gorazd followed the admonition of the holy Apostle Paul and did not seek how to obtain praise from people, but from God; he strove therefore above all for inner purity, not for an outward aura of holiness, for success in his church and a splendid personal “image.” In his seeking of the Truth for himself and his nation, in the realisation of that which had already been revealed to him and which he had attained in his spiritual seeking, he stopped before no authority of this world. Thereby in time he earned admiration even among his opponents. Together with holy Paul, St Gorazd holds that “whatever gain I had (formerly), I counted as loss; indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in Him…” (Phil. 3:8). Everything he had, everything he attained, even his position, he continually put at disposal; he was prepared to sacrifice everything for the knowledge of the Truth, for the most perfect possible participation in it. And he also did so…

In his struggle for the Truth the holy Vladyka martyr did not spare himself either bodily or spiritually; inwardly he abandoned everything that began to appear to him already as imperfect and outworn—even though it was dear to him and had formerly served him in the spiritual life. There came a moment when in his struggle he broke through to the knowledge that the Truth, salvation and the spiritual renewal of the nation and its future are not found in the church in which he had grown up, as he had formerly hoped, but are offered only by the Orthodox Church. Certainly for him disappointment in the Roman Church was very painful, but he keeps faith with the path upon which he earlier set out. He leaves his native church, in which he had already attained recognition, which offered him material security and high position if only he would abate from his spiritual ideals… He sets out on a further afflicted pilgrimage into the unknown, hoping in God’s guidance, blessing and help. Like the patriarch Abraham he leaves at God’s command his home and, having placed his hopes in the Lord, goes into uncertainty, after His voice…

What he did was folly in the eyes of this world. In order for the holy Vladyka to advance on the path to the perfection of Christ, he obeyed the holy Apostle Paul and became a fool for Christ; he knew that the wisdom and prudence of the reasonable of this present world is folly to God, whereas the Lord makes His “fools” truly wise… He renounced the strength and power which the mighty Roman Church afforded him, and the honour which he already enjoyed there. He chose the path of an outcast and became the leader of those upon whom everything was heaped (and to this day is heaped), who were the target of attacks, slanders, contempt, who here had no earthly certainty… And they endured everything (1 Cor. 4:13).

The holy Vladyka established contacts with the Serbian Orthodox Church, received holy Orthodoxy, and after a time departed to Serbia to be consecrated there as an Orthodox bishop.

Before eight o’clock in the morning on Sunday 25 September 1921 there entered into the cathedral church of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade a delegation with a great white banner, in whose centre shone a chalice of red colour and whose tip was finished with an Orthodox cross; twenty-two representatives of Czechs and Moravians longing for Orthodoxy, together with a representative of the Orthodox faithful from Subcarpathia and two women in Moravian national costume, accompanied their chosen candidate for the episcopal dignity, now already a monk—Archimandrite Gorazd—to the laying on of hands as an Orthodox hierarch.

The delegation from Moravia received in Serbia an unusually warm welcome. No one knows precisely why—it was entirely surprising, but we may sense it; all perceived the thousand-year greatness of the event and rejoiced with spiritual joy. The participants of the delegation recall the welcome as unexpectedly moving. After the receiving of the new name—Gorazd—all with tears in their eyes began to realise that Gorazd’s name after a thousand years was again returning to Moravia. The Yugoslav press writes: “…The memory of this Gorazd (the first—the disciple of St Methodius driven from Moravia) has been preserved in the tradition of the Serbian nation. Although he (that Gorazd) could not finish the work laid upon him, yet he preserved his name for ages to come. His destinies are not known and his trace ends in Belgrade. After twelve centuries there comes to the same Belgrade a son of the Moravian land to receive and carry away (back) that talent of Cyrillo-Methodian faith which his predecessor, the saint, deposited in the hearts of Serbian brothers. The spirit of the first Gorazd has rested upon this his successor and kindled in his heart the fire of love for the idea of the first apostles of the Slavs, and in the same Belgrade Gorazd the Second after twelve centuries receives the episcopal staff, that he may carry into his native land a new sowing of that seed which was sown by Methodius…”

The people of Belgrade welcomed the precious visitors in enormous numbers—there came all the clergy, the monastery school, teachers, elementary schools, the Belgrade Czechoslovak colony, a representative of the city and many people who cheered Czechoslovakia; they were welcomed by the singing of church and Slavic songs; bouquets and bread with salt were not lacking… Gorazd himself answered the greetings; he declared that the Roman orientation does not correspond to the character of the Czech nation and that now with the help of the Serbian Orthodox Church there is coming about that which had been contemplated but which under Austria could not be realised… Belgrade families received the Czechoslovak pilgrims into their dwellings as dear guests. On the morrow the rite of “naming as bishop” took place; the cathedral church was full. “Belgrade is not easily enthused and stirred,” Belgrade newspapers wrote two days later. “Although it is not religiously fanatical, yet with unusual enthusiasm it welcomed the new bishop and the representatives of the Czechoslovak communities, for it instinctively realised the whole great seriousness of the event.”

At the liturgy after the festive consecration a special thing happened—when the patriarch led the newly consecrated bishop before the main altar doors to the people, the Belgrade faithful greeted the newly consecrated with extraordinary cordiality and loudly. “No Serbian bishop until this day have they thus greeted,” the Yugoslav newspapers wrote. These cordial ovations and greetings were repeated also at the end of the divine service, when Patriarch Dimitrije with fitting words gave Bishop Gorazd instruction and handed him the episcopal crozier. Then Vladyka Gorazd with the staff in his hand and the mitre on his head took his place on the ambo and in Czech thanked the Serbian Church and nation… He expressly emphasised that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia is not the result of some propaganda, but the renewal of the old spirit which the Habsburgs had managed for so long to suppress. He gives his word that he and his brothers will remain faithful and devoted not only to the Serbian Church but also to the Serbian nation.

And what were the impressions of the delegates? For the first time they met with the festive church life of the Orthodox Church. From the Roman Church they had experiences with church hierarchs—princes who were far, far distant from the simple people, almost inaccessible. Here they came to know that Orthodox bishops are true shepherds and spiritual fathers of their people.

The ovations in the Belgrade cathedral church, however, did not apply to that episcopal vesture to which all were accustomed, but applied to that man who after hard and tireless work had preserved the ideal: to lead the whole nation to Christ and the truth.

Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović² in his prediction to Vladyka Gorazd at his consecration uttered also these words, prophetic words about Gorazd’s life path, which was to last from 25 September 1921 until the day of his martyr’s death on 4 September 1942 at the Kobylisy military shooting range in Prague a mere twenty-one years:

“Not to hasten after an earthly kingdom and dominion, but always to incline to the heavenly kingdom, after the example of St Lazar of Kosovo. This our old faith of our ancestors does not boast of rapid successes, but calmly awaits the final success. It does not expect applause from contemporaries on earth, but from the angel in heaven. Time is not counted in years, but in centuries. It will endure all mockery in the unshakable hope that it will rejoice last. Such experience of Orthodoxy can give Vladyka Gorazd courage for the onslaughts that await him, and also the aura of glory that must be joined with the name of the first bishop of the Czechoslovak Republic.”³

When the holy martyr Vladyka Gorazd received holy Orthodoxy, he did so in the same manner as everything else in his holy life—honestly; with his whole being he entered into the spiritual space of the Orthodox Church; with his whole heart he came to love it. He knew that in seeking the Truth and realising it one cannot bargain or jest if one does not wish to be made unworthy of the Truth forever… St Gorazd took this step with resolve and courage, leaving himself no cautious “back door.”

At that time he had already been set by God in the place of one who leads the entrusted flock. As a shepherd who leads and bears responsibility, he walked at the head and himself first took upon himself that to which he was leading others. He was aware that the role allotted him by God was hard, that he was to become the spiritual father of the nascent local Orthodox community; he knew what toil and pain awaited him, for he had been instructed by the holy apostle and by Holy Scripture as to what it means to be a spiritual father—that people have many tutors of various kinds, but few of those whom they most need, namely fathers who in Christ Jesus through the Gospel give birth to their entrusted sheep—their spiritual children—into true faithful Christian life, for heavenly life (1 Cor. 4:15). It means again and again to give them birth painfully until they have the form of Christ (Gal. 4:19). As a father guards the virginity of his daughter whom he has betrothed to a chosen bridegroom, so also the holy Vladyka follows the Apostle Paul and with godly jealousy as a spiritual father cares for his daughter—the local church—that he may present her as a pure virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2).

By receiving holy Orthodoxy, however, St Gorazd’s struggle for the Truth does not end; on the contrary.⁴ Together with the apostle the Vladyka could say: “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own… forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead… Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Brothers, join in imitating me. But our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:12–20). The Vladyka came out from the midst of those who were not bearers of the pure Christian Truth; according to the command of Scripture he “separated himself”; he no longer wished to be unequally yoked and to have further anything in common with a false Christian community (2 Cor. 6:14), and now he anxiously took care that those whom he led he truly brought straight to Christ. Had he promoted himself—as some of his former collaborators did, who led the greater part of the throng from the Orthodox path to Christ onto the path after themselves—he would have denied the Truth, would have succumbed to unrighteousness, and punishment and the wrath of God would have awaited him (Rom. 2:8). In order not to commend himself, but that he himself might be recommended and praised by the Lord (2 Cor. 10:18), he guarded himself lest he grow slack in his inner struggle and spare himself in nothing; and thus he gradually abandoned everything that was indeed dear and sacred to him, to which he was accustomed, but which differed from holy Orthodoxy—from its Tradition, customs, usages.

The holy martyr Gorazd knew that in attaining the Truth one cannot go to compromise either inward or outward. He was aware that outward things (the outward form of spiritual life, of divine services, of church doing) are, where everything is at stake—life or death, Truth or deception—just as important as their inner content. He knew that compromise is from the devil; therefore he did not spare himself and grew quickly to the full acceptance of Orthodoxy—its inner spiritual values and outward forms… What an example for the faithful of today and their shepherds! For today all too often the reasonableness and wisdom of this world is used in order that the Church be dissected, that from it everything “merely outward and of the age—unnecessary to today’s person” be removed. Of such learned wisdom God of course makes folly, as Scripture says. For in these blasphemous attempts to perfect the work of God, to improve and beautify the Body of God which the Church is, in these “cosmetic operations” for the adjustment of the exterior the operation in truth turns into a dissection, for “the operation succeeds, but the patient dies.”

As a good shepherd the Vladyka martyr was hard and uncompromising toward himself, but to a certain measure forbearing toward the entrusted sheep, that he might bring all—strong and weak—to salvation, become all things to all, that he might by all means save some (1 Cor. 9:22). With the milk of infants he at first fed his charges, that in due time he might provide them with the strong spiritual food of full holy Orthodox Christianity.

To himself, however, he abated in nothing; as leader and shepherd he was to all an example and indicator of direction; he was always a step ahead of his flock and strove to stand where he was leading others—which by his martyr’s death he truly did: through his martyrdom he stood at the throne of God, whither he led his entrusted little flock. St Gorazd was not a blind leader of the blind…

The holy Vladyka gained by his zeal for the Lord of hosts, for the living Truth of Christ, and by strenuous spiritual struggle in renunciation and ascesis, and also for the mercy which everyone found with him,⁵ abundant dew of the blahodať (grace) of God from above, which descended upon him and brought him already here on earth not only a reward for his renouncing life full of self-denial, but above all further spiritual growth, strength to continue, and the capacities of a seer⁶ to lead the entrusted flock. Of his ascetic life, continual fasting, self-discipline and severity toward himself many mentions are made in this little book and several testimonies given. His face often shone spiritually, so that some witnesses, when they speak of his “wearied face,” remark that “from that face there went forth radiance and warmth”; this was said not to have been caused by the sun, but by “the goodness and beauty of his soul.” His spiritual life and the strength of faith so radiated from his personality and acted upon others that his work, when compared with surrounding Christianity among us, was by one witness likened to “a young shoot of the Orthodox Church on the withered trunk of Christianity in the Czech lands.” Of the spiritual gifts which in his holy life he received in abundance from the Lord of hosts we shall note the most distinctive—the blahodať of the Holy Spirit endowed him: with the gift of humility (modesty) and aversion to glory⁷; related to this is also the gift of meekness and obedience (how distinct this delicate gift is on his path through life!—he actually continually subordinated himself for a higher interest and did what circumstances required for the spiritual benefit of those who were around him, not what his heart would have wished, even though those were pious wishes; even the acceptance of the episcopate he sincerely resisted and subordinated himself only when there was no other solution; indeed his whole life he did not seek his own will…); further he was endowed with the gift of prophecy, which he gained for his prophetic service to the nation—that is, the proclamation of holy Orthodoxy, God’s Truth; more than once in his life he prophesied future events and especially then the end of his earthly life (the year and month of his martyrdom—September)⁸; then he was adorned with the gift of tears, the gift of weeping over his sins; for this gift ascetics and hermits strive earnestly, and not every one of the great Fathers received this precious spiritual gift…⁹ Further we behold in the Vladyka the most precious gifts—the gift of the desire to suffer for neighbours and the gift of love; several times in the reminiscences of his contemporaries we have heard the Vladyka express a quiet desire to suffer, to offer himself in sacrifice—it is a desire truly Christlike, a sharing in the Saviour’s sacrifice, as the holy Apostle Paul writes of it¹⁰; the love of St Gorazd toward the end of this little collection perhaps needs no further documenting… Yet all these charisms are gifts bestowed upon martyrs.

By his daily bloodless martyrdom he became a model of Christian life for all whom he led. He himself first died to himself, that he might teach this to others. He heard Jesus Christ, his Divine Master, saying that if the sown seed does not die, it does not become a great tree giving much fruit. Only through this transformation, which on one side has the form of death, but on the other side the form of birth, does one enter the Kingdom of God—these are the only doors. By this known path he himself first of all walked at the head of his little flock; he led by it to the springs of life those who had ears to hear and eyes to see, who were chosen for acceptance by the Lord.¹¹

He completed and crowned his pastoral task by departing by that martyr’s path upon which he had walked his whole life to the throne of God’s glory, that he might personally lead us to the very goal of Christian life, of which he became in his life and death a prophet, confessor and witness (martyr). The perfection which the holy Vladyka attained in his life consists in the manifestation of love, above which there is none. Now by his intercessions at the throne of God he cares for those who truly walk in his footsteps and are real heirs of his spiritual legacy, and calls down God’s wrath upon those who falsify and spoil his work… Truly only he is a successor of St Gorazd who does not love himself, who despises worldly glory, popularity and praise, for all that is a bad sign for a Christian—and for a shepherd and father it holds doubly. Only he is his heir who cultivates and proclaims the uniqueness and incomparability of holy Orthodoxy with other forms of Christianity, and that in words and deeds, as he himself did; who cultivates poverty, zeal for the Lord of hosts together with moral and ethical blamelessness—as Holy Scripture says: “We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labours, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love (without hypocrisy); by truthful speech, and the power of God… We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live… as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything” (2 Cor. 6:3–10).

As a good shepherd the holy Vladyka Gorazd had understanding for the weaknesses of his sheep; he knew that often—the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Compromise, which he never admitted where it concerned his own person, he to a certain measure allowed for the weak, that he might grant them time for growth. In order to become for the spiritual infants to whom he had become a spiritual father also a caring loving mother, he first fed them with milk, that they might strengthen and mature; for his sheep still belonged to this world, still did not have the Spirit, but thought meanwhile in a fleshly manner. Therefore there were then sometimes also envy and strife, for they still belonged to the world, to this age (1 Cor. 3:1–3). Therefore there are also today among us often envy and strife, for the walls of our church crumble and collapse and the world penetrates into the interior of the local Orthodox community—the more deeply it dominates it, the further we distance ourselves from Christ’s Church, which does not mix with the world; we can serve only one master: either the Lord, or the prince of this world (that is, the devil) (Matt. 6:24). To those who would wish to “sit on two chairs” it is said—Jesus does not accept the service of one who at the same time also serves the ruler of this age.

We must ask ourselves whether the pastoral leadership of St Gorazd in our local church was fully followed upon… For not only have we remained with milk, but—if we stay still with this comparison—this milk, instead of being thickened, has on the contrary with the passage of time been more and more diluted with water. The infant then, instead of strengthening and growing spiritually, wasted away and wastes away to this day. The hopeful spiritual growth of Gorazd’s church was succeeded by stagnation and gradual decline. Thus from us the spirit of St Gorazd has gradually withdrawn, so that today we do not even well realise in what it actually consisted, just as his blessing hand has withdrawn from us… The spiritual spark and the sound teaching about the Church (which is the foundation of the spiritual life and growth of every local church), which our holy Vladyka cultivated in his flock, have vanished.¹²

The spark has gone out and the teaching has been spoiled by lukewarmness and compromises. Something of that kind St Gorazd would never have admitted, for from there it is already only a step to complete spiritual death.¹³

Certainly the progress of history and the ever approaching time of the spiritual collapse of humanity—and consequently the time of the second coming of Christ, which Christians from the very beginning look for—also plays its role. The age has truly advanced and from the signs of the times we may estimate that the time is drawing near; the spiritual descent of humanity is now plainly apparent. Already in the last century Russian elders complained that “true piety has almost vanished; now there is only hypocrisy”; the spirit of the world truly acts ever more powerfully; piety weakens in the East and the West abandons the last remnants of the old traditional piety that still persisted there; the words of St Gorazd (from a reminiscence of childhood) are only evidence of this: “When I recall those long past times when people believed livingly in God, regularly took part in the services of God, leading with them their children from earliest youth, and undertook distant journeys in order at a sacred place to confess their sins, rid themselves of heavy secret burdens of transgressions and return home liberated, comforted and strengthened with good intentions—how I pity present people who for the greater part already do not know the consolation, beauty and strength that spring from religious life” (HP 5/49). What would the holy Vladyka say of today’s people of our times? We may easily estimate… Appealing to the present spiritual fall of all humanity and the degraded spirit of the present may be an explanation of our problematic church–spiritual state, but of course not an excuse!

The period through which we are just now passing is, according to old Orthodox prophecies, the last term, the last opportunity for conversion, for the spiritual renewal of the local church in the spirit of St Gorazd; the holy Gospel teaches us that the tree which does not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire… Our salvation can be found only in the consistent cultivation and development of the old, original Orthodox teaching and practice. In order to be concrete at this point, let us cite only at random several possible stimuli—what urgently to carry out in the spirit of Orthodoxy and in the spirit of the line of St Gorazd in our situation; regarding our expression toward the world, for example: in the ecumenical forum clearly to pronounce the Orthodox teaching (as St Gorazd did) that the unity of Christians can consist only in the acceptance of holy Orthodoxy by all who call themselves Christians; that our desire is that the whole world become Orthodox (—the words of St Gorazd)¹⁴ (connected with this is also the cessation of public prayerful communion with so-called “heterodox Christians”). Regarding our pastoral work within the local Orthodox Church: into the life and practice of the church communities it is desirable at an unceasing tempo gradually—step by step—to introduce the fullness of the spirit of the holy canons,¹⁵ in which is captured the sacred Tradition of the Church, whose holding and cultivation is a typical phenomenon for Orthodox churches; to this belongs among other things also the renewal of the form of church acts (e.g. that baptisms /that is, “immersions”/ be truly holy baptisms, confession /that is, “confession of sins”/ a true holy confession with the confessing of sins, not merely of general sinfulness, etc.). To this St Gorazd aimed; well then, let us not turn aside from the direction of his spiritual line.¹⁶

It is not a comfortable path, nor an easy one, but it is Orthodox; it corresponds to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church and is the only salvific path that we can choose. If we do not set out in this direction, we expose ourselves to the danger that Christ’s salvation will cease to dwell in our midst. At the beginning we spoke of two paths—the comfortable broad and the afflicted narrow—between which every Christian must choose many times, but equally so also shepherds and fathers, and through them by this or that path there goes also the whole community of every local church. We stand at the crossroads where the Truth is revealed to us—and that through the form of full holy Orthodoxy. After 1989, when the borders opened, we are confronted with Orthodoxy as the great ancient Orthodox churches live it, which by their inner strength, the strength of the old tradition, have brought it into today’s times. How shall we come to terms with this revelation? Which path shall we take—the comfortable path of drowsing with an appeal to St Gorazd, who is to bless this drowsing and dreaming?! Or the narrow path upon which in reality the holy martyr Gorazd walked; the path of laborious growth, patient pastoral explaining and enlightenment, mission, enthusiasm—but also of being an outcast and rejection by the “wise” world—and of disinterested, self-sacrificing work toward the realisation of full salvific Orthodoxy with all its salvific power?

Certainly it is not possible to advise that we become Greeks and accept all Greek spiritual customs and ways of holy Orthodoxy in Greece; we cannot become Russians either and build here a Russian Orthodox Church and the like. That would be an approach alien to Orthodoxy. It is, however, not only possible but also desirable and above all Gorazdian to be inspired everywhere by the ancient Orthodox churches (evidently especially by the Slavic form of Russian and Serbian Orthodoxy closest to us). It is above all a matter that Czech Orthodoxy cease to be in the Orthodox world an anomaly for its fixed beginner’s character, its poverty. The inner dynamism of the local Orthodox Church, the movement from beginner’s practice toward full Orthodoxy, always lay upon St Gorazd’s heart; he knew, however, that all the spiritual wealth accumulated in the course of two millennia cannot be absorbed by Czechs who have just received Orthodoxy all at once; therefore he proceeded step by step and introduced here into life Orthodox forms of spiritual life one after another—rather more slowly than precipitately, that the nation might grow spiritually at its own tempo and not accept historically developed Orthodoxy purely formalistically. He knew that first one must start from what is already here, explain to local people what is Orthodox and what is non-Orthodox, and limit oneself in that only to the main things, but above all strive to eradicate from the religious life of one’s flock everything that is not a part of Orthodox doctrine.¹⁷ After his bright departure to the Lord’s throne, however, this process among us slowed and eventually stagnated… Its revival is for us a question of further being.

Beside us there dwell in this world great ancient Orthodox communities; they offer us models of how holy Orthodoxy looks, what teaching it has, what ways, customs, practice… This one must hold to, this follow, and to this already with the blessing of the holy Vladyka Gorazd arrive. In this spiritual growth of individuals and of the whole community there is after all the spirit of St Gorazd; the holy Vladyka himself accepted all this and unswervingly step by step led his spiritual sheep to it.

Let us ponder what the holy Vladyka would probably say to us, who already in 1939 wrote of our nation and the local Orthodox Church when he evaluated the past—from today’s viewpoint interwar—period: “It is, however, our duty to draw your attention to the urgent necessity that we … all sincerely and truly adjust our relation to God and our belonging to our holy Orthodox Church. The life of our nation after 1918 was burdened with a great lack of genuineness. After words deeds often did not follow. This was apparent also in religious and church life, and that without distinction of confession. Also in our church, though it can show a whole series of gratifying positive results, far more could have been done had we all been filled with the spirit of genuineness. — Little religious living was done also throughout the whole time of the past 20 years. The Lord is He who gives strength to His people. What do we wish to achieve without Him?” (Bulletin 4/39)

Thus the holy Vladyka evaluates the work of the interwar generation of Orthodox faithful—work to which we look with admiration and marvel at the ardour and endeavour that were needed for it to be carried out (it was a period in which in our tiny local Orthodox Church every year a new Orthodox church was consecrated—and they were for the most part not little chapels; on the contrary in many cases they are truly great churches; and that in times of poverty and economic crisis—truly extraordinary self-sacrifice of the faithful was needed). When we listen to this evaluation of the Vladyka’s of the years gone by, we can easily guess what the holy Vladyka would probably say addressed to us. Truly, it does not take much labour to think through what the holy Vladyka would probably say to “his” Czech Orthodox Church of today’s days, but—do we want to think it through?

We have set forth above what it could mean when one says “the spirit of the holy Vladyka Gorazd.” It is a great pity that very few of the faithful and of shepherds truly take pains to understand so precious a personality, to appropriate the thinking of St Gorazd and his approach to the Church, to life and to the world. Few today have the courage to take an example from this truly saintly personality and enter upon the path of following. Rather from the name of St Gorazd a spell has been made with which we excuse our lukewarmness, our unwillingness to journey somewhere and to do something inconvenient with ourselves… Just as in the times of the holy Vladyka it holds that “more people want to live for a great cause than to die for it.” Unfortunately the unwillingness for “dying” has above all a spiritual form; I mean the unwillingness for spiritual growth, for spiritual dying to oneself, the unwillingness for that daily bloodless martyrdom (which is actually resistance to the Cross), which of course was the most characteristic trait of the saintly personality of Bishop Gorazd. How then can we regard ourselves as his spiritual children, as his heirs and followers, when we do not accept that which is alone truly essential—his spirit?

The holy Vladyka did not spare himself and continually offered himself in sacrifice to God; he therefore had the moral right to demand sacrifices from his faithful. At the laying of the foundation stone of the Orthodox church in Štěpánov St Gorazd said: “I ask you to persevere. Your sacrifices are great, but he who sows in tears will reap in joy…” (HP no. 8, 1957). Equally the Vladyka martyr demands sacrifices also from us who wish to have a share in the Czech Orthodox Church of which he was and is the angel; for he consecrated it with his martyr’s blood. His legacy is the acceptance of the Cross, the willingness to suffer and endure contempt or enmity; to sacrifice oneself for Christ.

It is often said that today is a different time, a different situation; today it would be still far harder than in Gorazd’s days to appear as he did. If we look at the society and situation of that time, we easily recognise the groundlessness of this assertion (moreover, however—even if it were a true objection, St Gorazd in all times and social situations would have behaved the same; he would always have chosen the narrow path.)

In the times of St Gorazd his situation was in reality very difficult. Hostile attacks, slanders, hardships and adversities poured upon him and his holy work. The world simply cannot behave otherwise, whatever the time may be. Gorazd’s church, however, strengthened and grew. It seems that blows from without directly strengthened it; together with the apostle it could say to itself—what does not kill me strengthens me; daily I die, but I live. That it might be apparent that all this happens by the power of God, not by human strength: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed—always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life (resurrection) of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies… We know that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus…” (2 Cor. 4:8 and following).

This faith is the legacy of St Gorazd; there is then no resurrection without death—how can we hope for resurrection when we do not wish to die for Christ? Fear of hardship and suffering, of perishing, is characteristic of our time; yet we are already in such a state that only the power of God can raise us! We try to save ourselves by our own strength, and that can be our real end; through help from this world and recognition from the mighty of this age the path to resurrection does not lead. If this world understands and recognises us, then that means nothing other than that we are already dead. As long as we are alive—that is, not only outwardly, but above all inwardly, spiritually—then of us the words of holy Paul will hold, that no one from the world can understand us, for: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him… We have received the Spirit and can judge all things, but we ourselves cannot be judged by anyone… We have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:14 and following).

If we strive so much for cooperation and good relations with the surrounding world, we shall not receive this “peace in the world” for nothing; we should have to renounce something that irritates the spirit of this world. But that means to renounce the spirit of Christ, which is to this world a sword, and he who has it will never have quiet upon earth. Fears that Gorazd’s ideals and ways would bring us difficulties today are true. Yet Gorazd’s—Christ’s—holiness and blessing will visit us. It will not be a comfortable and broad path…

We shall find ourselves in a situation when we can say together with Scripture: “I will boast of my weaknesses (infirmities), that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). That we are in solitude and weak? In that is our boast.

The holy apostle further exhorts us in Scripture to take good care how we live (to walk carefully), that we not behave as unwise but as wise, redeeming the time, for the days are evil. Therefore we are not to be foolish, but to understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:15–17). If we recall the spiritual chaos of the First Republic, the light of the Truth that shone from the personality of St Gorazd stands out the more. His clear and to all apparent (and readable!) orientation is for us today a radiant example; this bright example is somewhat lacking in our local church today and thereby our mission is crippled, for in Orthodox Christianity that consists precisely in the showing of an example.

The chaos of the world since the days of the First Republic has probably still intensified, and the only justification of our being here is: to shine with the light of the Truth; I am not entirely certain whether we succeed in that… On the contrary, spiritual confusion, as it seems, successfully undermines the walls fencing our church off from this world.

We have spoken of the manner of Orthodox mission, which stands and falls with the bringing of a personal example. No one can be converted to Orthodoxy by persuasion, proofs, disputation—still less by violence, threats with sword in hand. Christian mission can be carried out only in the manner which once for all the Lord God Himself determined, when He Himself carried out the first mission by Himself coming to His people and letting them taste whither He invites them. The blessed Christ Himself descended, that that which was only hope and distant might become near and tasteable. Thus also in the Orthodox world this manner of mission endures—the missionary must show upon himself to people and enable them to taste that which he proclaims; he cannot come only with a pack full of books or with promises, yet with hands spiritually empty. He himself must show upon himself the spiritual growth to which he invites others; he is not to be ashamed of his struggles, for they are inseparable from the gaining of the Kingdom of God—precisely steadfastness in spiritual struggles gives the best testimony of the faith and the promise to which we have dedicated our life, after which we journey, and of whose blessings we already here and now taste, otherwise we could not endure such trials and remain faithful.

The example the saintly personality of the Vladyka truly affords us—we see how he looks who seeks neither high position, nor glory, nor recognition and praise from the surrounding world; who seeks only how he might walk the strait path of self-denial and quiet inconspicuous self-sacrifice for Christ. Let us cite here his own words about himself (and they are therefore precious words, for the Vladyka did not speak of himself gladly and often), which he wrote as thanks for the congratulations shown on the fifteenth anniversary of his episcopal consecration—which anniversary he himself did not even celebrate, though his grateful people remembered it.

“Brothers and sisters! Toward 25 September (1936) there came to me many expressions of love, for which there remains for me only to thank all heartily. I myself would not even have realised that from 1921 already 15 years had passed, had I not been alerted to it by friends from Prague.

It is true that this time was filled with many labours which often—especially in earlier years—descended upon me like a whirlwind, so that I often did not even know to what to devote myself first… All these labours, however, I performed gladly… it was for the greater part creative work, which is indeed accompanied by inner suffering and often also by misunderstanding on the part of those around, but in the end brings the greater joy. Besides work the time also brought me many cares, which I accepted as a burden laid upon me by God; that I might not sink, it was necessary daily to ask God for help. The greatest trials were prepared for me by disappointment in (some) people… It is easier to face open enemies… There were also many struggles; I have, however, the consciousness that on my side they were defensive struggles against dangers that threatened the work begun now from this side, now from that; it often happened that it was necessary simultaneously with one hand to work and with the other to fight, as the Israelites did when after returning from captivity they again built Jerusalem. … If amid all those blows, trials, misunderstandings and also my personal imperfections, faults, defects, mistakes and inadequacies certain successes were achieved, it is a proof that the Lord stood by our common work. Without His evident help we should have built nothing. To Him be thanks rendered and His will be done with us.

In all joyful and painful events it was a strengthening to me to be conscious that I had not thrust myself into the sanctuary of God nor into the present (episcopal) office. I never longed for a significant place nor for an outstanding role. If ever in life I sought anything, I did it not for my person but for the cause. The consciousness of responsibility, so heavy when it concerns responsibility not only for oneself but also for others, drew me my whole life into seclusion, for I am convinced that I shall scarcely be able to answer even for myself. A severe eye disease, ending usually in complete blindness, was indeed an unwelcome event, but when blindness seemed inevitable, I inwardly reconciled myself to it completely, for it appeared to me as a means of liberation from responsibility for others and of inner concentration.

I have reason to believe that God did not agree with my continual tendency toward solitude and seclusion, when the diseased process in the eyes stopped to such a degree that with certain interruptions I can work. He is my witness that I did not wish in any case to bind my participation in the movement that arose among us in church life after the (First) World War with any even the most insignificant church office. If in the spring and in August 1921 I accepted election (as bishop), being compelled to it, I regarded it only as a temporary way out of the then situation, firmly hoping that my function would last only a short time. To the consecration in Yugoslavia I in the first days of September 1921 categorically refused to go, so that the messenger Father Protodeacon Niketić, who was to accompany me, had to depart without me. Only upon the general urging of all did I resolve to set out on the journey to Yugoslavia, when the same messenger came again to Olomouc. What I undertook in Sremski Karlovci that my consecration might not take place, I for the time being consider it my duty to keep silent about. If despite that the hands of the consecrators rested upon my unworthy and poor head, it happened only because I humbled myself and bowed before something from which there was no other way out.

Yet throughout those fifteen years I regarded myself… only as the forerunner of him who is to come after me. I am nothing but a missionary who prepares the way and who longs for nothing else than to be able to hand over to him who comes the Czech Orthodox eparchy… The renewal of Orthodoxy in the Czechoslovak nation is the work of God.

Fifteen years, however, is a short time and does not deserve to be celebrated. Therefore I celebrated no jubilee.”

For us the only salvation is to do what St Gorazd as an Orthodox bishop did—he took the armour of God of which St Paul writes: the shield of faith against the fiery darts of the Evil One, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; about his loins he girded himself with Truth and armed himself with the breastplate of righteousness. The soldier of Christ does not wage war against human enemies, but against the powers dominating this age of darkness, against the heavenly spirits of evil (Eph. 6:12–17).

In conclusion it would be fitting to bring several words about St Gorazd which our predecessors (his contemporaries) wrote—episcopal consecration in Belgrade did not mean for Vladyka Gorazd the attainment of the goal, but the beginning of hard and laborious work… Many of us well know by what means the struggle against our Vladyka was conducted; he who does not know, let him not even long to know it… Our Vladyka defended Orthodoxy against all; not for a second did he prove unfaithful… though around him there remained only a part of former Orthodox Moravia, yet he led it onto the path of our Orthodox fathers… Our Vladyka manifested a firm will, resolve and a sense of responsibility with extraordinary self-denial and self-sacrifice for the church…

The holy Vladyka in his letters wrote: “Daily I often ask God to strengthen me, that I may not completely sink in spirit before I accomplish what I consider necessary to accomplish, before my successor comes; I should like to hand over to him a work more finished than it is now.”

In moments especially hard, when another would even give up further work, the Vladyka writes resignedly: “…this impression threatens even my desire for work, though I am aware that it is necessary to work and leave the rest to God’s will and Providence, and it is actually a duty to persevere even unto complete exhaustion and falling upon the way.”

At the time when the lines cited above and the Vladyka’s letter on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of his consecration were written, there remained until his martyr’s sacrifice and witnessing to Christ by the shedding of his own blood still approximately five and a half years…

For if we live by God’s Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit; let us not seek empty glory (Gal. 5:25). “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

The Holy Martyr Gorazd and His Legacy — Epilogue⌗

The holy martyr Vladyka Gorazd sacrificed his life for the Orthodox Church—the mystical Body of Christ—already long before the shedding of his blood at the Kobylisy place of execution. At the conclusion of my meditation on our dear holy Vladyka I should like to ponder what the local Orthodox Church which by God’s ordering he built here and consecrated with his own living blood was for the Vladyka martyr, and what holy Orthodoxy in general meant for him.

Sometimes one may meet with a tendency to see St Gorazd II as the first “ecumenist,” who regarded the Orthodox Church here as unique only in that ritually it links to Byzantine–Slavic Cyrillo-Methodianism, that it uses the vernacular for divine services and the proclamation of Holy Scripture, that it enabled his priests to lead a family life. Gorazd’s Orthodox Church would thereby be only a substitute for a reform of the Roman Catholic Church not permitted by Rome. I think that for such a “substitute church” the holy Vladyka did not give his life…

The reform desires of Roman Catholic priests at the beginning of our century found in the matter of removing obligatory Latin and introducing the vernacular into the divine service fulfilment after the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church in the sixties of our century (perhaps only except for the possibility of a married priesthood—but even that /as some observers judge/ is perhaps only a question of time).

The Byzantine—Cyrillo-Methodian rite is practised among us (sometimes unfortunately with impure intentions) by a number of Roman Catholic priests—biritualists—and is usual in the Roman Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite—among the so-called “Uniates”—active in eastern Slovakia and striving to cultivate this impure and condemnable work also in the Czech lands.

Were Roman Catholics to abandon the obligatory celibacy of the clergy, Gorazd’s Orthodox Church would lose its justification for existence among us; it would perhaps be suitable only for cultivating Eastern folklore for emigrants from the East? No; I am of the opinion that the Gorazdian Orthodox Church will lose nothing of its justification for its activity here, in our homeland, even if Roman Catholics served Eastern liturgies daily in every town, in Czech and in Church Slavonic, even if their clergy could marry. For the holy Vladyka Gorazd built here not only a church with Cyrillo-Methodian customs, but above all an Orthodox church. The holy new martyr did not sacrifice himself for the Eastern liturgy, nor for the Czech liturgical language, nor for the possibility of a married priesthood, but for holy Orthodoxy. Certainly a significant component of holy Orthodoxy is also the safeguarding of early Christian practice—thus the use of a generally understandable language in the church, not restricting access to the priesthood for those who live in honourable marriage, and the like. Essential and fundamental for holy Orthodoxy, however, is that it is the guardian of God’s revelation, of divine truths, that in its bosom there dwells the fullness of God’s working and of the Lord’s dwelling among people, which Jesus Christ brought into the world for people. One of the significant truths guarded from apostolic times in holy Orthodoxy until today’s days is that in the world there is only one spiritual–material Body of Christ, a holy space, sacred ground, which is Christ’s Church, the Bride of God, where uncorrupted apostolic Christianity is safeguarded and the fullness of salvific Christian spirituality cultivated. For the one undivided Church God built upon the holy apostles here on earth through Jesus Christ. Undividedness is its characteristic property; a divided Church would already not be Christ’s Church. Of this Church the Lord promised that the gates of hell would not overcome it—thus that the devil would not divide this divine–human unity. Orthodox Christians believe that this Church founded by Christ upon the apostles truly exists until today’s days and will exist until the end of the ages and that today it is called the Orthodox Church. That is the Orthodox confession—“I believe in one holy, catholic (conciliar), apostolic Church…” That is the confession of holy Orthodoxy. From this faith the holy Vladyka drew strength again and again in pains to give birth to the local Orthodox community—until it has the form of the Church—of Christ. For this faith and this confession the Vladyka martyr Gorazd II gave his consecrating life.

The Orthodox Church was for the holy Vladyka neither Cyrillo-Methodian excavations nor Byzantine folklore nor a mere satisfaction of his youthful desire for reform of the Roman Catholic Church. But holy Orthodoxy was for him a revelation and knowledge of the truth, the fullness of the Truth—Christ, the one and unique Church of Christ, where he found early Christian spiritual freshness. For this revelation and knowledge he gave his life every day, and because thereby he arrived at the perfection of spiritual life, God granted him bodily to carry out what he lived spiritually—he gave his body for the Church of God, for Christ.¹⁸

(Adapted; the original wording of this essay was printed in instalments in Hlas Pravoslaví from no. 7 /1994/ to no. 2 /1995/)

Postscript⌗

Perhaps it is not unjustified, looking into history, to express the conviction that a wasted or frustrated opportunity does not repeat itself—or only after a thousand years. Of the unique talent entrusted to us by God through Saints Cyril and Methodius—to hold the holy authentic Christian faith—we were, a thousand years ago, shortly after the repose of St Methodius, deprived. The fruits of the unique and God-blessed work of the holy Slavic apostles were harvested by other Slavic nations which managed to defend them before enemies and did not let them be taken away. Whatever the reasons for which we lost the Orthodox Christian faith that was sent down to us from heaven and than which nothing more precious is upon earth, the opportunity was frustrated and the spiritual door closed—for a thousand years. After a thousand unhappy years, marked by the vain endeavours of our ancestors in this nation to regain the lost Truth of Christ, to find the stolen pearl for our nation, the Lord looked upon the urgent cry of the martyrs of this land and the lament of the nation for the pure Church of God, for the Truth of Christ, for liberation from errors and the shaking off of the spiritual yoke of church enslavement to wolves in sheep’s clothing; He heard the longing of many generations for the heavenly gift of true original Christian spiritual life. The philanthropic Ruler, who desires that all people come to the knowledge of the Truth and attain salvation, sent us a second opportunity for the dwelling of His Church in the midst of our people and after a thousand years renewed Christ’s Church, holy Orthodox Cyrillo-Methodianism through the martyr St Bishop Gorazd II. Already the very name of the renewer of the work of the holy brothers of Thessalonica, which by God’s counsel he received and bore even to the throne of the Lamb, reveals his spiritual linking to the ancient holy work of God in Great Moravia; and not only linking, but the renewal of the Cyrillo-Methodian Church among us—for in his person there stood among us Gorazd, whom alone St Methodius appointed as his successor, the Orthodox Bishop Gorazd, the only legitimate spiritual heir into whose hands through Methodius’s blessing the Lord placed that which Saints Cyril and Methodius brought to us—holy apostleship, and also that which they built here in Moravia—Slavic Orthodox Christianity, participation in the true Church, where the fullness of the blahodať (grace) of the Holy Spirit dwells, the fullness of salvation.¹⁹

How our church evaluated the work of St Gorazd twenty years after his consecration, when as yet no one suspected (or perhaps someone did suspect?) that in less than a year the holy Vladyka renewer would already no longer be among the living and even his church would not be able to act publicly. The periodical Bulletin then wrote:

“Divine Providence Itself inspired the consecrators of the Vladyka that he be named Gorazd, with the name of the dearest disciple of St Methodius,” and he also became his successor. “And thus what our distant ancestors lost by the departure of Methodius’s disciple Gorazd has returned to us in the newly ordained Bishop Gorazd (II).²⁰

There returned into our fatherland the true spirit of Christ’s Church, whose propagator and guardian the first bishop of our church became. Our original culture, which our nation once renounced, was again revived, and religious life, superficialised by indifference and lack of interest, began to deepen and to bring revival into our spiritual life. Yet enthusiasm alone, which can soon evaporate, did not suffice. Work was needed—genuine, apostolic, self-sacrificing work, before which not a few hands grew weary and not a few minds sank. He who did not sink and did not grow weary, however, was our Vladyka Gorazd. It is known to us all how many passionate disputes the Vladyka had to resolve in order to defend the religious movement before an irreligious spirit… What unscrupulous means and evil intrigues and slanders were used against the Vladyka when he defended the idea of Orthodoxy as the early Christian form which alone is active Christianity in the apostolic spirit and that of the Church Fathers of the post-apostolic age… The Vladyka’s tenacious and thought-out work did not remain without success… Were we to live through all those cares and struggles, sleepless nights and exhausting work at the desk, on journeys, in libraries and state archives in Vienna, Budapest, Zadar and elsewhere, as the Vladyka lived through it all, would not many of us sink in spirit and give up… One day we shall all marvel at such directly superhuman work and the ant-like labour of Vladyka Gorazd… Even now the Vladyka knows no rest… In these days when we recall all this, when for all that work and sacrifices with all gratitude we thank our spiritual shepherd, let us promise ourselves that we shall walk in his footsteps and that we shall faithfully and unswervingly work in the Lord’s Vineyard to the honour of holy Orthodoxy and for the salvation of our souls…”

By the violence committed upon Gorazd I the liquidation of the legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius was begun a millennium ago; by the martyrdom of Gorazd II the renewal of this legacy in our land was completed. Through the expulsion of the person of St Gorazd I salvific Orthodoxy in our nation was obliterated; through the coming of the person of St Gorazd II (inasmuch as the former Matěj Pavlík returned from the Orthodox South as the new Orthodox Gorazd) it arose again.

St Methodius joined the life of holy Cyrillo-Methodianism among us with the name “Gorazd”; outside this designated episcopal name there hovers over these lands only Methodius’s curse (as is indicated in the ancient Christian legend)…²¹

The future of holy Orthodoxy in this land is joined with fidelity to the person chosen by God of St Gorazd II. Through him the knowledge of the Truth again rested in our nation; the dwelling of Christ’s Church in our midst was renewed; Christ’s salvation again visited our people. That we may keep this visitation of God, it is necessary continually to study the personality of St Gorazd II, to be faithful to the known legacy of Gorazd and to follow him. With St Gorazd II is joined the being and future of the Orthodox Church in our nation in this age and in those to come. As we already convinced ourselves a millennium ago, the wasting of an opportunity is not forgiven.

— Hieromonk Jan Baudiš

Author’s note to this year’s internet edition: I wrote this text in the first half of the 1990s as a young priest. The personality of St Gorazd II was for me then a fresh discovery, for even despite formal awareness of that saint I had until then not suspected how great a saintly figure God’s providence endowed us with in the twentieth century. Therefore I began to study all available materials about the holy Vladyka, his articles and the reminiscences of contemporaries. The more I learned of him, the deeper was my admiration and the reverence with which I bow before St Gorazd to this day. For the original admiration has not left me even after twenty years; on the contrary it grows as I age and understand through my own life experiences the greatness of his work.

When I now read—exactly after 20 years—the lines which I then wrote, I of course feel that today I would formulate something a little differently and that I should perhaps be able to write my testimony about our consecrating martyr more aptly. On the other hand—the youthful enthusiasm over the discovery of the Vladyka’s personality, which most likely seeps between the lines of this little study, also has something to it, and so after a moment of hesitation I have left everything here as it was then printed (only with several truly insignificant adjustments).

I recall that in their time my reflections were on the whole favourably received by the older clerical generation, which did not hide a certain surprise that the memory of Vladyka Gorazd can also heartily address the young rising generation of clergy. Perhaps even today this imperfect but enthusiastic meditation of mine upon our great saint will speak to someone. I wish the readers the blessing of the consecrating martyr Gorazd II.

Sources:

Protopresbyter Pavel Aleš: “Seventy Years Ago”; Orthodox Calendar 1991, p. 53.

Bulletins of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy (appeared until 1942).

Hlasy Pravoslaví, church bulletins, collections and calendars appearing after 1945.

Footnotes⌗

Vladyka Gorazd himself still said to this: “That I always held to. It was sometimes quite hard to defend the truth and my conviction… Sometimes I could not even sleep or eat because of it. It cost me much mental strain. But I did not yield until I attained my goal.”
The prophetic words of St Nikolaj may also be read in another chapter here.
Protopresbyter Pavel Aleš: “Seventy Years Ago”; Orthodox Calendar 1991, p. 53.
Of the beginning of the Vladyka’s work it was written: “And thus began the very hard work of the new labourer in Christ’s vineyard, toil full of self-denial; and because this spiritual field, loosened and sown by the grace-filled work of the holy brothers (of Thessalonica) and their disciples, had long since grown over with the weeds of various heresies and fleshly thinking, Bishop Gorazd had to suffer many attacks from those who were scandalised at the ‘folly of the cross.’ The Vladyka patiently endured everything, saying that every truth must pass through the furnace of temptation. Unfortunately the majority of the members of the movement of the Czechoslovak Church did not endure in the truth; holy Orthodoxy began to seem to them a heavy burden. They did not wish to believe the Saviour’s words that ‘narrow is the gate and hard the way that leads to life’ (Matt. 7:14). But Bishop Gorazd, when he had once become convinced of the truthfulness and salvific character of Orthodoxy, kept faith with it unto death. This consistent, unswerving standing in the Truth, this firmness of character, are for the holy Vladyka very characteristic; they are, however, also a reproach to our time, which is so full of lies, compromises and the silencing of conscience.”
He left it thereby to God to judge who is worthy of mercy and who is not. “There were also such people who knew how to use and abuse his kindness and generosity. When I sometimes admonished him to caution, he used to say: ‘People may deceive me, but not the all-knowing God.’” (From the reminiscences of Rostislav O. Hoffmann; HP 5/49).
Seer—prophet, visionary (endowed with spiritual sight).
E.g. he did not gladly go to public–political celebrations; he refused to let himself be photographed for illustrated newspapers—e.g. on the occasion of receiving the highest order from the Romanian king, of which honour he mentioned to no one… (His collaborators were then sorry for that…) Of his modesty, quietness, longing for inconspicuousness and similar qualities connected with humility there is talk many times in this little collection.
Of this there is mention several times in this little collection—especially remarkable is J. Šembera’s reminiscence of the Vladyka’s last Christmas; see the footnote toward the end of the article “Vladyka Gorazd and Our Press” (here); also in the essay “Vladyka Gorazd, the Righteous One” (here). Of St Gorazd—prophet of God see also the essay by Prof. Dr Štefan Pružinský “St Gorazd and the Patristic Tradition…” (Here).
See Father Hoffmann’s reminiscence of a joint divine service on Great Friday 1937 in Chudobín in the chapter “A Few Pictures from Reminiscences” (here).
“…I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church…” read Col. 1:24 and following.
Just as already during Christ’s sufferings His future glorification began to be revealed (e.g. when Pilate’s wife, after having a vision in a dream, calls the Lord the Righteous One; also Judas laments that he betrayed innocent blood), so also already through the Vladyka’s life filled with suffering some of his contemporaries began to have revealed to them the spiritual greatness of this faithful servant of Christ. Even the Roman Catholic Archbishop A. C. Stojan said to Roman Catholic priests attacking Bishop Gorazd: “Leave Pavlík alone, for you are not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal (according to the words concerning Christ; see Matt. 3:11 or John 1:27); if all were such as Pavlík, it would be well.” The Roman Catholics tried to induce him to return to their church with the assurance that his episcopal dignity would be preserved for him and he would be able to choose according to which rite he wished to serve—whether by the Latin rite or the Eastern.
Certainly one must take into account the youth of the local renewed Orthodox Church, the liquidation of the church under the German occupation, the tangled situation of the church renewed without a shepherd in the revolutionary postwar period, foreign interventions into church administration at that time and the destructive influence of Communist totality that followed upon them; ed. note.)
There are also spiritual connections here—the promise of fidelity to the Serbian Church and nation which St Gorazd (for himself and for his brothers—and thus also for successors) gave at his consecration in Belgrade and which he himself anxiously kept (he maintained connection with Belgrade even after accepting the jurisdiction of the Berlin Archbishop Seraphim—of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia—which he did under the pressure of circumstances, with the knowledge of the mother Serbian Church and for a transitional period), was not kept by his church after the war and Serbian jurisdiction was abandoned (though the Serbian Church after the war wished to care for the orphaned Czech eparchy) and Moscow’s accepted; the troparion to the national saint of the Serbian Church, Sava, disappears from Gorazd’s Popular Collection of Prayers and Hymns at its new edition in 1951.
Further on a similar theme see the words of St Gorazd cited in the article of Prof. Dr Š. Pružinský “St Gorazd and the Patristic Tradition…” (Here)
“Canons” are the sacred rules of church life compiled by the holy Fathers and accepted and lived by the Church (the so-called “holy Tradition”).
Only to provide a concrete example let us cite the standpoint of St Gorazd regarding baptismal practice—from the Chudobín church chronicle we learn that baptisms by mere sprinkling (without immersion) the holy Vladyka regarded only as a temporary manner which would be practised “only until the people can be properly instructed.” And further—concerning holy confession—let us hear the words of the holy Vladyka Gorazd according to the reminiscences of witnesses: “A confession at which a grave sin is deliberately concealed is invalid, and moreover he who has deliberately so incompletely confessed commits thereby a new sin. If there are many penitents and time does not allow each to confess separately, it is necessary at least to perform a common holy confession. A priest must never and in no way betray what he has heard in confession; were he to do so, he would be deposed” (Hlas Pravoslaví no. 6, 1983).
Thus wise Vladyka Antony (Khrapovitsky) advised him; see also here.
Just as Master Jan Hus, of whom the holy Vladyka was an ardent venerator, St Gorazd II sacrificed himself for the living Truth—Christ; author’s note.
“By accepting the name of Methodius’s disciple he indicated that he would continue where St Gorazd I had been prevented. And thus the Serbian mother Church, having once received from us Gorazd the First, returned to us Gorazd the Second, who began the organising of the Czech Orthodox Church—work exceeding human strength,” it was written of St Gorazd II (Bulletin 5/39).
Of the native right of the Orthodox Church in our land St Gorazd II wrote: “For it was the first Orthodox Church which provided the Czechs with the salvific teaching of Christ and thereby also the light of a better culture and better living. The Czech nation then was the first of all the Slavs which received Orthodox Christianity, and that still with great honour directly from the mouth and hands of the great apostles, Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, who then found in our Moravian land also the place of his last earthly rest. Orthodoxy is therefore our first faith and we are the first Orthodox Slavs. Among us there arose perhaps all the fundamental sacred books which then served millions of our Slavic brothers. What an honour for our nation, yet at the same time what a surplus of duties! And these again press first of all upon us who first of the whole nation have resolved again to declare ourselves for the faith of the fathers” (Hlas Pravoslaví no. 7, 1957).
That in Gorazd’s Orthodox mission—the renewing of Orthodoxy among us—after a thousand years it is a unique (and for long ages again the only) opportunity to build the Orthodox Church of God in our nation, the holy renewing bishop himself also sensed. His words written six years before his martyrdom attest this: “Who knows whether there does not now consist a moment—for a long time perhaps the last—which is given us by God, that we may prove ourselves as members of the church who are worthy of the greatness of the Orthodox Church” (see the essay of Protopresbyter Bohumír Aleš—“A Few Words to the Memory of Vladyka Gorazd”).

— Jan Baudiš / From the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

Brothers and Sisters!⌗

Czech original: Bratři a sestry!

After the Munich betrayal the holy Vladyka Gorazd addressed to his believing people an open letter published in the Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy of 1 April 1939 (no. 4). At other places in this collection we have already brought excerpts from this letter. At the very conclusion we wish to give the word to the holy Vladyka and bring a substantial part of this message of the Vladyka’s, which at the beginning of so hard and fateful a time as was the Hitlerite occupation is preceded by a reading from the Gospel in which the Lord Jesus (at the moment when many disciples were leaving Him) asks His apostles: “Do you also wish to go away?” and they answer Him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and come to know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:67–69); the Vladyka’s letter begins with fervent words:

Brothers and Sisters!

We consider it our duty to say to you a few sincere words.

. . .

Whoever wishes to build anything permanently must not neglect God, justice and truth. Let us begin with God and earnestly beseech Him graciously to turn His face toward us and to accompany us with His grace.

The pillar of God’s truth upon earth is the church: that which our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ founded and whose only head He Himself is; that which the apostles organised and which holds to the principles of the primitive. It is the Orthodox Church. That for our nation Saints Cyril and Methodius organised. That, having been among us ages ago violently suppressed, is now being renewed in our homeland, that our nation may have its Czech and at the same time universal (and not isolated) church, as among the Slavs the Russians, Serbs and Bulgarians have to their happiness preserved it, forming a seventy-percent majority of all Slavdom.

Christ’s Church, being the work of God, is as a whole indestructible. It has endured upon earth already almost two thousand years and has seen in that time many state formations arise and perish, and no European state has hitherto had so long a duration as it, and none will outlast it. That is what we ought well to be aware of. Orthodox nations maintain and develop their constructive strengths and capacities within the framework of their church. The Serbs and Bulgarians were more than 500 years under the terrible Turkish yoke, the Russians then about 200 years under the Tatar yoke, but they preserved undiminished their nationality and the extent of their settlements; indeed the Russians encompassed not only half of all Europe but extended their settlements beyond the Urals across the whole of Siberia to the Pacific Ocean. The moving force of theirs was Orthodoxy.

No civic, national or cultural association, however good, nor even a school, has so lasting a significance for a nation as an Orthodox church community. Associations, even the most meritorious, and schools, even the most significant, are in political upheavals swept from the face of the earth. Our Orthodox Church, however, has not been touched in anything by state–political changes and is state-recognised and fully respected in Slovakia as well as in Subcarpathia, in Hungary and in the German Empire.¹

Every Orthodox church community preserves for itself anywhere in the world and after any upheavals whatever not only its existence but also its national character, for both the Orthodox faith and a certain national character belong to its legal essence. Both are guaranteed to it by the church constitution and by its confirmation on the part of states. After the (First) World War there fell to the Italian kingdom three Serbian Orthodox church communities: in Zadar, Trieste and Peroj, and all three maintain their national character and their Church Slavonic and Serbian language. In the Roman Catholic churches, of which in the territory of former Gorizia and former Istria annexed to Italy there are several hundred, the Slovene and Croatian language has been completely eradicated both from church songs and from sermons, and Italian has been introduced. One must ponder the causes of these two so different phenomena.¹

. . .

We also emphasise the necessity that from our midst there be completely eradicated and disappear the view as if the church were only some kind of religious association. This view, in the Czech nation fairly common, is utterly mistaken and erroneous. Religious associations are founded by people; the church, however, is an institution of God. Its head is Christ and not a person, and it is the body of Christ, as the holy Apostle Paul says. Christ works in the church and is present, and the Holy Spirit fecundates it. — Of religious associations there have already been thousands and they have again perished, whereas the church endures continually. Religious associations have only partial purposes limited in substance, time and place; the church, however, has a universal purpose, never emptied and never emptiable, but continually timely and actual, destined for all humanity and for all human generations until the end of the world and into eternity. It is therefore entirely mistaken to look upon belonging to the church in the same way as upon membership in some association. Many people suppose that they do the church a favour when they are in it and work within its framework or when they remember it perhaps only in the last place with some contribution, after first having spent much on entertainments, excursions, cinemas, cafés, games, drinking, smoking and entirely superfluous finery. Thus of course only those can think who think that the church is an association, and that as to significance perhaps even the last. In reality and in truth, however, belonging to the church, work in it and material support of its purposes is for everyone a great grace, distinction and honour; church fellowship ought to be felt by each of us as salvation and an anchor of salvation. Not in vain did the Lord Jesus call the church a treasure to which preference must be given before everything else. He also said that where our treasure is, there is also our heart. Well then, let our hearts grow together with the church!

Let us perform seriously, loyally and correctly our duties to the state; let us avoid rash actions; let us believe in Divine Providence; let us not interrupt work in the church already begun (for example buildings), but let us finish them; let us all draw together around our church communities and let the church communities draw together around the lawful eparchial functionaries and organs.² Let us be convinced that our holy Orthodox Church is the firmest foundation of both the religious and moral and also the national life of ours. It is the focus of both this life. Therefore let us work first of all in it; thereby we shall most surely also work for the future of our nation.

Notes:

This letter was also reprinted in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 5, 1949; the paragraphs marked by this index, however, already then could not be printed and were omitted from the wording of the Vladyka’s letter; let us note that the “post-Munich” censorship (the censor intervened with his deletions in Gorazd’s Bulletin from November 1938) did not confiscate them, whereas the “post-February” did.
From the beginning of the paragraph to this index the text in the “post-February” edition of this letter (in HP 5/49) is also missing; in this case it is of course apparently an intervention of the then editorial office of Hlas Pravoslaví, which probably did not wish to put into the holy Vladyka’s mouth words interpretable in the contemporary context as an exhortation to collaboration with Communist power.

With these words Věra Linhartová welcomed Bishop Gorazd on 13 November 1921 in Olomouc (printed in Hlas Pravoslaví no. 8, 1991):

Brother Bishop, beloved Gorazd

There was once a time when Moravians welcomed the glorious brothers from Thessalonica, who brought to us love for God, for the homeland and for the dear mother tongue. But that time has passed. After the death of Methodius the Czech language perished and our nation lived without hope. But lift up your head already, O nation; desperate hopelessness topples into the abyss; from Serbia, that land of heroes, the glorious Vladyka Gorazd returns. Our churches will again resound with the beloved mother tongue; we shall no longer fear for the speech given us by God. You will always walk in the footsteps of Master Jan, and kindle love for the homeland in rich and poor alike. May the Lord God therefore protect you in all the world’s troubles, for You have awakened a nation that until now slept in darkness.

Epilogue⌗

We have remembered. “They are, however, reminiscences of a man of God, an apostle of the Lord, whom God sent to our nation that by the living and written word, as also by the example of a holy life, he might refresh the hard hearts of our people, call to repentance and a return to God’s truth as it is preserved in the Orthodox Church. ‘Remember your leaders, who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith!’ (Heb. 13:7).” (From the reminiscences of Rostislav O. Hoffmann; HP 5/49.)

— St Gorazd’s own open letter after Munich; from the collection Shepherd and Martyr (Olomouc 1992–1995)

The Life and Work of St. Gorazd, Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia, New Martyr⌗

Czech original: Život a dílo sv. Gorazda

Saint Vladyka Gorazd, Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia, new martyr, restorer of holy Orthodoxy in the Czech lands, was born on 26 May 1879 (new calendar) in the village of Hrubá Vrbka, in the Hodonín district of Moravian Slovakia. It is a region of the White Carpathians known as Horňácko.

Saint Vladyka came from the family of an educated farmer and prominent public figure, Jan Pavlík, and Anna, née Bělčíková. His parents were of the Roman Catholic confession. At baptism the child was given the name Matěj in honour of the holy apostle. It should not go unmentioned that the people of the place where Saint Vladyka was born were distinguished by fearlessness and deep piety. Roughly half the inhabitants of Hrubá Vrbka were of the Evangelical confession; the other half were Roman Catholics belonging to the parish district of Kuželov. The Evangelicals had their own church in the village, with a school and a rectory. Young Matěj attended the Evangelical school, although he was of the Roman Catholic confession. He gladly took part in the services in neighbouring Kuželov. He was well liked by teachers and classmates alike. He studied with distinction, and in his free time he read a great deal, especially literature about the life of the first Christians. A book on the persecution of Christians made a particular impression on him.

As soon as Matěj finished elementary school, his parents sent him to study at the Archbishop’s Seminary in Kroměříž. He studied at this gymnasium from 1890 to 1896. Then, from 1896 to 1898, he studied at the State Gymnasium in Kroměříž. When he was in the seventh form, he began privately to study the Old Slavonic language. He completed his gymnasium studies with distinction. In 1898 he began studies at the Roman Catholic theological faculty in Olomouc. In 1900, at the transition from the second to the third year of the faculty, the theology student Matěj Pavlík made a pilgrimage to the Kiev Caves Lavra. He completed his studies at the theological faculty with distinction in 1902, and on 5 July of the same year he was ordained a priest. He served in various parishes, contributed to the journal Hlídka, and devoted himself to further study of the history of the religious ideas by which the Czech nation lived in the nineteenth century. Father Matěj Pavlík’s scholarly interests found no understanding with Archbishop Kohn of Olomouc, who instead charged Father Matěj with editing the journal Pozorovatel. Father Matěj held this post for only one year, from 15 September 1905 to 15 September 1906, after which he was appointed confessor at the psychiatric hospital in Kroměříž. He held this office from 15 September 1906 until 1 May 1920. In 1910 he was further appointed confessor to the women’s Order of the Holy Cross. The sisters of this order formed the medical staff of the psychiatric hospital. Father Matěj studied local and foreign methods of treating psychiatric patients and won much recognition not only from the patients entrusted to him, but also from the physicians and the state hospital staff. Alongside recognition, however, Father Matěj also received insults and slander in the left-leaning newspaper Rovnost.

During the First World War an ideological rift arose between Father Matěj and the majority of the Roman Catholic clergy, who excused and supported Austro-Hungarian aggression against Serbia. He therefore began to publish the journal Právo národa. In this journal articles calling for reforms in the Roman Catholic Church were also printed.

In the autumn of 1918, when social changes began to take place in Czechoslovakia, Father Matěj was stricken with a serious eye disease. After a long hospitalization Father Matěj went into early retirement. At that time around half a million Roman Catholics, priests and faithful, left the Roman Catholic Church and laid the foundation of the new Czechoslovak Church—a church without a hierarchy, without connection to the universal Church—with which Father Matěj could not agree. After long prior deliberation, on 11 October 1920 Father Matěj parted from the Roman Catholic Church in order to take a place in the leadership of that part of the reform movement which aimed at uniting the new religious formation with Orthodoxy. From 1 July 1921 Father Matěj was appointed administrator for the region of Moravia and Silesia. In the same month he began to publish the religious journal Za Pravdou, in which he defended Orthodox principles attacked by the radicals who had seized leading positions in the Czechoslovak Church. Despite great resistance from the radicals, thanks to Father Matěj the first sobor of the Czechoslovak Church adopted Orthodox dogmatics and the principles of Orthodox ethics. On 21 April 1921, at a congress of the church communities of Moravia, Father Matěj prevailed over the radical wing in the matter of Orthodox orientation. The conclusions of this congress influenced the course of the deliberations of the Church’s Central Committee held on 7 May 1921 and of the second sobor of 19 August of the same year. Then the final decision was adopted that the Church accept Orthodox doctrine and all the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The second sobor decided that the religious movement would be called the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church and elected three candidates for episcopal consecration: Father Matěj Pavlík, ThDr. Karel Farský, and Rudolf Pařík. Present at the sobor was a delegate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Vladyka Dositej, and thus doctrinal and canonical communion was established with all the local Orthodox Churches.

The conclusions of the second sobor served for the deliberations of the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Church, which on 7 September 1921 elected Father Matěj Pavlík as a candidate for episcopal consecration for the Moravia-Silesia eparchy with its see in Olomouc. The following candidates for episcopal consecration were also elected: ThDr. Karel Farský for the western eparchy with its see in Prague, and Rudolf Pařík for the eastern eparchy with its see in Kutná Hora.

Father Matěj was invited by His Holiness Patriarch Dimitrije to Belgrade for episcopal consecration. Regarding himself as unworthy, Father Matěj hesitated to accept episcopal consecration, but in the end he submitted to the will of the Church. The other two candidates were not invited, for their fitness for episcopal consecration still had to be examined, namely from the doctrinal and ethical points of view.

On 21 September 1921, on Fruška Gora in the Lavra of Krušedol, Father Matěj received monastic tonsure, which was performed by Vladykas Dositej and Maximilian. At the monastic tonsure Father Matěj was given the new name Gorazd, in honour of St. Gorazd, disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius and Archbishop of Moravia. On the following day, 22 September, Hieromonk Gorazd was elevated to the rank of hegumen at the monastery of Gergetek; on the same day, at the monastery of Hopovo, he was raised to the rank of archimandrite. On 24 September 1921 the rite of nomination as a candidate for episcopal consecration was performed over Archimandrite Gorazd. The following day, 25 September, in the Cathedral of St. Michael in Belgrade, the consecration of Archimandrite Gorazd as bishop took place. The consecration was led by His Holiness Patriarch Dimitrije, with the participation of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan Varnava, Bishop Dositej, and Bishop Josif.

During Vladyka Gorazd’s stay in Serbia, Karel Farský and his companions embarked on a path of gradual propaganda against Orthodoxy. In this case we see how cautiously the Serbian Church acted when it did not invite to episcopal consecration the other two candidates proposed by the sobor. At the same time Roman Catholics, Protestants, and the socialist political parties, together with the People’s Party, came out against Orthodoxy. The government of the Czechoslovak Republic recognized Vladyka Gorazd only as administrator of the eparchy.

Upon Vladyka Gorazd’s return from Serbia, a festive welcome was arranged for him by Karel Farský in the Church of St. Nicholas in Prague on Old Town Square. It was a ceremonial address full of phrases and cunning pretence. Shortly after Bishop Gorazd’s arrival, the radicals led by Karel Farský himself launched an attack against Orthodoxy in the central press organ Český zápas. Vladyka Gorazd spoke out against this baseness at public gatherings in Prague–Smíchov, Benešov, Tábor, Stará Paka, and České Budějovice. The radicals led by Karel Farský, with the help of the socialist majority in the government of the Czechoslovak Republic, made it impossible for Bishop Gorazd to continue publicly defending the Orthodox orientation. Vladyka Gorazd, however, did not give up and made use of every opportunity that presented itself. Among other things he said: “A Church that would act with such mental reservation would not deserve the name of a religious society, still less of a Christian Church. From such a ‘church’ all honourable people would turn away in disgust, and with such a ‘church’ the true Church would refuse to negotiate. Such conduct would bring upon our Church, and upon our nation as well, the shame of treachery… If the Czechoslovak Church is resolved not to acknowledge traditional Christianity, it would be necessary to say so openly, and it would likewise be necessary consistently to declare that it has no need of consecrated bishops or consecrated priests. If, however, it insists on the consecration of priests and bishops, traditional Christianity must not be brushed aside.” In the journal Za Pravdou in 1922 he writes: “It would be a sign of a truly broad conscience to resolve upon acceptance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the seven Ecumenical Councils, and further upon acceptance of the name Czechoslovak Orthodox Church… and at the same time to laugh at everything Orthodox: both at the articles of faith and at the rites.”

In July 1922 Vladyka Gorazd was sent on a missionary journey to America, to the Czech colonies. During his work in America the radicalists launched an open attack against Orthodoxy by issuing a catechism whose authors, K. Farský and F. Kalous, proclaimed in it that God does not dwell in Three Persons. God, they claimed, is the living law of nature; Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, but only the best of prophets. They placed the Lord Jesus Christ in one row with Moses, Socrates, Muhammad, Zarathustra, Buddha, Confucius, Cyril and Methodius, Jan Hus, A. Komenský, and other national awakeners. According to the catechism the Holy Spirit represents the breath of God in man. Orthodox teaching concerning the Theotokos was rejected. Jesus Christ was depicted in the catechism as the fruit of the married life of Joseph and Mary. Holy Scripture of both Testaments has a natural origin. The biblical account of the creation of the world is a fairy tale, and man has animal ancestors, and so on (Czechoslovak Catechism, 1922, first and second editions). Against the heresies set out above there came forward the representative of the Serbian Church, Vladyka Dositej, and the overwhelming majority of the faithful in Moravia. Vladyka Gorazd spoke out against the heretical catechism in two letters sent from America.

The consequences were not long in coming. The Serbian Church broke communion with the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church. Bishop Gorazd returned from America in order to speak out against the heresies on the spot; he knew, of course, that the days of his work among the adherents of the heresies were numbered. The Vladyka strove to save those of the faithful whom the virus of heresy had not yet entirely overcome.

At the same time, entirely independently of the Czechoslovak Church, there was active in Bohemia the Czech Orthodox Religious Community, which took organizational shape during the Vladyka’s work in America. This community disregarded the fact of the canonical dependence of all Orthodox in the Czechoslovak Republic upon the jurisdiction of the Serbian Church (apart from the Russian emigration), dating from the time of Austria-Hungary, for this legal state of affairs still obtained in the new legislation of the Czechoslovak Republic. Their insufficient patience in dealings with the Serbian Church in the matter of recognizing and consecrating a bishop had as its consequence that the representatives of the Czech Orthodox Religious Community turned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which quickly settled their request. Archimandrite Savvatij (Antonín Jindřich Vrabec) was consecrated bishop and appointed Archbishop of Prague and of all Czechoslovakia. Thus the foundation was laid for later disputes, which were moreover supported by the state. President T. G. Masaryk and other leading figures of the Czechoslovak Republic were opposed to the restoration and strengthening of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia. On the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic three bishops of different jurisdictions were active: Gorazd—Serbian jurisdiction; Savvatij—Constantinopolitan jurisdiction; and Sergij—jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Vladyka Gorazd, having no possibility of pastorally leading in Bohemia those members of the Czechoslovak Church who were oriented toward Orthodoxy, recommended that they enrol in the Czech Orthodox Religious Community, that is, under the spiritual care of Archbishop Savvatij. This also largely came about, especially in Prague. On 5 March 1923, at a session of the eparchial council of the Moravia-Silesia eparchy, Bishop Gorazd, for dogmatic and canonical reasons, resigned from the office of eparchial hierarch and from further work in the Czechoslovak Church. The eparchial council did not accept the resignation, and the representatives of the Orthodox orientation—who were the majority—begged Bishop Gorazd at a gathering on 21 March 1923 to remain thereafter at the head of the eparchy. Vladyka Gorazd complied with their request so that the Orthodox might not remain without a shepherd, but already at the beginning of April 1923 he was called upon by the Central Council of the Czechoslovak Church to leave its fellowship together with his adherents. At the same time President Masaryk pressed the Vladyka to leave the Serbian jurisdiction—surely an interesting coincidence of pressures and events.

To the summons of the Central Council Vladyka Gorazd replied by continuing for yet another whole year the struggle with the radicalists and striving to confirm in the truths of Orthodoxy as great a number as possible of the members of the Czechoslovak Church. On 27 May 1923 the candidate for bishop Rudolf Pařík withdrew his earlier assent to the Czechoslovak Catechism, declared himself for an Orthodox orientation in the Czechoslovak Church, and renounced his candidacy for the episcopate. Vladyka Gorazd at the same time strove for a solution by common action with Archbishop Savvatij, but the negotiations did not attain the desired result because of the negative attitude on the part of the Czech Orthodox of the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction. President T. G. Masaryk, an opponent of Orthodoxy, intervened in the matter and brought pressure to bear on Vladyka Gorazd to renounce the Serbian jurisdiction. Articles by irresponsible persons in which Vladyka Savvatij was insulted certainly also had their negative influence. Vladyka Gorazd’s effort to explain the misunderstanding that had arisen was not accepted by Vladyka Savvatij. At the beginning of 1924 a rapprochement of positions took place between the two hierarchs and between the Orthodox in the Czechoslovak Church and the Czech Orthodox Religious Community in Prague. In Moravia there passed over to the Czech Orthodox Religious Community Fr. Václav Zdražila, parish priest in Drahotuše, and Fr. Josef Žídek with the faithful of the parish of Chudobín.

On 20 May 1924 (old style) the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church sent Vladyka Dositej to the Czechoslovak Republic to strive for a resolution of the disputed questions between Bishop Gorazd and Archbishop Savvatij, and at the same time expressed agreement with Vladyka Gorazd’s transfer to the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction on condition that he request it, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate guarantee the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in the Czechoslovak Republic, and that the Orthodox in Subcarpathian Rus remain in the Serbian jurisdiction. The desired agreement was not reached. On 10 June 1924 the journal Za Pravdou appeared for the last time as the diocesan organ of the Czechoslovak Church for Moravia. On 21 June 1924 Vladyka Gorazd ended his work in the Czechoslovak Church. With Vladyka Gorazd there also departed the Orthodox portion of the Czechoslovak Church, which ceased to be a Church and, by the loss of its only bishop and by persisting in the heretical teaching formulated in the Czechoslovak Catechism—which it supported by its declaration at the sobor of 31 August 1924—became a fashionable religious association.

After 21 June 1924 Vladyka Gorazd organized independent church communities in Moravia—for example Olomouc, Přerov, Štěpánov, Brno, Bílá Lhota, Dolní Kounice, Vilémov, Chudobín. At the same time negotiations on jurisdictional questions continued among Vladykas Dositej, Gorazd, and Savvatij, and between the Serbian and Constantinopolitan Patriarchates. The outcome of all the negotiations was in the end unsatisfactory because of the resistance of Archbishop Savvatij and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The jurisdictional dispute ended with the government of the Czechoslovak Republic recognizing only the Serbian jurisdiction.

In September 1924 the Vladyka sent the first students of theology to Serbia. He worked tirelessly for the development of the Orthodox mission. In the work Memorial on the Legal Position of the Orthodox Church in the Czechoslovak Republic the Vladyka demonstrated the state’s unjust attitude toward Orthodoxy, when other confessions received from the state many times greater financial support. The Orthodox Church received only a tiny portion of the surplus of the state budget—only 35 percent of the sum that belonged to it according to the law.

In 1927 the organization of the Czech Orthodox Religious Community passed to the level of an eparchy. One of Vladyka Gorazd’s many aims was that in every church community there should be a church and a rectory, so that the Church might not be dependent on the goodwill of school directors, because the services were held precisely in the schools. In that same year 1927 there was published a service book for priests under the title The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, and further Biblical History for Pupils of the 1st–4th Years of Elementary Schools. The Vladyka had to expend much administrative effort and patience, for only on 11 September 1929 did approval come from the Serbian Church and from the government of the Czechoslovak Republic that the church administration of the Orthodox Church began legally to exist at the level of an eparchy. Vladyka Gorazd constantly strove for the founding of a monastery, which was eventually founded, but the monks for various reasons dispersed. The Vladyka resolutely spoke out against opponents of the monastery from among the Orthodox. Vladyka Gorazd’s cash ledger is proof that from his own income he supported clergy, the building of churches, many Orthodox faithful, and also people in need without distinction of religious confession. Despite great obstacles, within four years the Vladyka achieved a resolution of the jurisdictional question, obtained the congrua, and strengthened the organizational structure of Orthodoxy in the Czechoslovak Republic at the level of two eparchies (the Bohemian and the Moravia-Silesia, Subcarpathian Rus).

Under the Vladyka’s leadership, from 1927 almost every church community built its own church. In this Prot. Vsevolod Kolomacký, later as a monk Archimandrite Andrej, was of great help to the Vladyka. The question of parish houses was, until the martyrdom of St. Vladyka, resolved only in Třebíč. Around nine percent of the building costs was covered in every case by Vladyka Gorazd. From 1928 through 1942 fourteen churches were built. Great were the successes, but no less great the obstacles. Against Orthodoxy there came forward T. G. Masaryk, the socialist political parties, the schismatic Czechoslovak Church, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals, who for example called the holy Liturgy “golden magic” and laughed at everything Orthodox, as Dr. F. Kozák testifies in the work What Is Truth?. Roman Catholics called the Orthodox “irredentists, Bolsheviks, an element unreliable to the state.” How much falsehood there was in that assertion is clear from the words of the Roman Catholic Dr. Josef Kubalík: “Czech Orthodoxy, thanks to its leader Bishop Gorazd, went purely religious ways.” (Czech Religion, p. 77).

The clergy were composed of former Roman Catholic priests. The Vladyka had to re-educate these clergy individually. For there were cases when individual clergy gave themselves over to unorthodox practices and ways of life. Some imitated the Roman Catholics, others the Protestants, or even sympathized with the practices of the heretical so-called “Czechoslovak Church.” The Vladyka emphasized that a priest must live for the spiritual flock and that his whole family must be an example of an Orthodox Christian family. The Vladyka was also disappointed in more than one young person. He himself was very strict and demanding toward himself. In his person severity, love, and truth were united. The Vladyka was an extreme opponent of compromises, as is proved by the fact that in every respect he abandoned earlier compromises and introduced no new ones into life. His rules for clergy are evidence of this. Many of his “followers” do not even want to hear of these “Rules.”

The Vladyka was a sincere man of prayer, of an apostolic spirit. It must be said that he personally knew every Orthodox family of his eparchy. He excelled also as a preacher and a scholarly worker. He was distinguished by personal modesty, consistency, self-discipline, industriousness, piety, love, humility, and faith and surrender to the will of God.

The Vladyka was also a great patriot, free of all nationalist and chauvinist extremes. In this spirit he formed the clergy and the faithful.

A significant work in the liturgical field was the compilation of the People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church and the ending of the use of so-called provisional liturgical texts. Saint Vladyka personally practised these chants in the individual church communities. He had to endure many attacks against the People’s Collection and met with much misunderstanding. A struggle had to be waged for the introduction of the People’s Collection and thereby also for the introduction of unity in the performance of the services. To this day no author has been found who has surpassed this work, who has continued further in the liturgical work, who on the foundation of the People’s Collection has built further the edifice of the fullness of liturgical life—and this too is the legacy of Saint Vladyka.

A significant work of St. Gorazd is The Life of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Their Relation to Rome and Constantinople, published under the pseudonym P. Malý.

In 1938 the Germans attacked Czechoslovakia, betrayed by its Western allies. Against this injustice Saint Vladyka Gorazd was the first to speak out, in his letter sent to the heads of all the autocephalous Churches. Much later Cardinal-Archbishop Beran of Prague spoke out against the injustice. In many addresses Saint Vladyka encouraged the faithful people in moments most grievous for the nation.

On 15 March 1939, with the quiet consent especially of the Western powers, Czechoslovakia, already mutilated in the autumn of 1938, lost its independence. The day before, the division of the Czechoslovak Republic had been carried out with the support of Nazi Germany, and on 15 March 1939 Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by Nazi Germany.

After 15 March 1939 Saint Vladyka wrote in the church journal words of encouragement to the faithful in the article “Brothers and Sisters,” and prophetically said that injustice would be removed if the nation did not abandon God. Among other things he writes: “… Be convinced that our Orthodox Church is the firmest foundation of our religious and moral, as well as of our national, life.” Saint Vladyka called for work in the Church and for the Church, and castigated worldly ways of life.

During the Nazi occupation the Church of St. Gorazd in Olomouc was consecrated, and the Church of the Holy Trinity was built in Čelechovice na Hané, which was consecrated only after the war. Saint Vladyka’s attitude toward the German occupation is clear from his words to Minister E. Moravec of the Protectorate government: “We shall be obedient to every lawful government.” The Protectorate government brought pressure to bear on Vladyka Gorazd to pass from the Serbian jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of Archbishop Seraphim of Berlin of the Russian Church Abroad. The transfer was carried out by an administrative route without the consent of the Serbian Church; therefore the Vladyka did not recognize such a transfer. At this time Archbishop Savvatij strove to provoke a new conflict. When he did not succeed, he sent a long letter to Bishop Gorazd, in which he accused him of Serbophilism, demanded every support of Vladyka Gorazd and of the eparchial council, and at the end of the letter threatened and appealed to the existing occupation laws.

The occupation was a very hard period for Saint Vladyka, who continued to develop missionary and patriotic activity. At this time he wrote the scholarly work The Latin Orientation, on which he had begun to work in 1938. In the treatise he exposed the Germanizing efforts especially of Roman Catholic monasteries. The work has not to this day been published in full. The hardships of the occupation and various arbitrary acts in church life weighed heavily upon the health of Saint Vladyka, who in a letter to D. Auerová writes: “… Now my nerves are torn to shreds. The administration of the eparchy is wearing me down, for alongside joys there come disappointments: here not everything is in order, there disputes arise that must be reconciled. That too burdens me greatly and tears at my nerves…”

In the period of hard trials mentioned above, Saint Vladyka wrote the Rules for the Clergy of the Czech Orthodox Church. On 27 May 1942 the assassination of Acting Reich Protector R. Heydrich took place. In this politically oppressive situation, on 14 June 1942 an episcopal consecration was held in Berlin, to which Vladyka Gorazd was invited. Very reluctantly, but under the pressure of the political situation, Vladyka Gorazd went to Berlin. After his return he learned that in the crypt of the cathedral church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius the parachutists—the perpetrators of the assassination of Heydrich—were hidden.

The hiding place of the parachutists was betrayed. Arrested were the Very Reverend Archpriest Václav Čikl, the Very Reverend ThDr. Vladimír Petřek, J. Sonnevend, Václav Ornest, and others. On 25 June 1942 at five o’clock in the morning the Gestapo arrested Saint Vladyka Gorazd, who even before his arrest, in a letter to the chairman of the Protectorate government and further to Minister of Education E. Moravec, took upon himself responsibility for everything that had taken place in connection with the hiding of the parachutists. E. Moravec forwarded the letter to the Gestapo. The Vladyka was in custody from 25 June to 4 September 1942. The Germans tore out the Vladyka’s thick beard, beat him, and used various other tortures. He was imprisoned in the next-to-last cell of the Pankrác prison. Every day he was taken away at ten o’clock in the evening for interrogation, which lasted until five o’clock. In the course of the day the Vladyka was not granted rest; more than once when food was being issued a guard kicked him away, and so he remained without food.

Witnesses of the Vladyka’s imprisonment and in part also of the torture testified that Vladyka Gorazd, the Very Reverend Father Václav, and the Very Reverend Father Vladimír and the others, despite all the torture, were very calm. Deep calm was reflected on their faces even at the trial, at the pronouncing of the sentence, and at the place of execution.

The earthly life of Saint Vladyka was filled with suffering. On 3 September 1942, after enduring horrific torture, he was sentenced with his companions to death by shooting. The sentence was carried out on Friday, 4 September 1942, at the shooting range in Prague–Kobylisy. The bodies of Saint Vladyka Gorazd, Father Vladimír Petřek, and Jan Sonnevend were cremated; the body of Father Václav Čikl was, according to the testimony of a German nurse, handed over for autopsy and scientific examination.

The life and work of Saint Vladyka Gorazd, canonized with the participation of all the hierarchs of our local Church and of representatives of the Moscow, Constantinopolitan, and Serbian Patriarchates on 5 September 1987 in the Cathedral of Saint Gorazd in Olomouc, is a witness that this man was a faithful servant and follower of Jesus Christ and was of an apostolic spirit. In his person the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia has the first holy martyr of the twentieth century, who, for the fulfilment of his archpastoral service according to the commandment of the Saviour, laid down his life for the Lord, the Church, and the spiritual flock entrusted to him.

We magnify thee, our holy father Gorazd, and we honour thy holy memory; do thou pray for us to Christ our God.

Prepared according to the candidate’s dissertation of Hieromonk Cyril (Pospíšil)

— source: Život a dílo sv. biskupa Gorazda II.

The Spiritual Struggle of St. Gorazd II with the World⌗

Czech original: Duchovní zápas sv. Gorazda II.

To every true Christian it is appointed that he wage a struggle with the world, with the spiritual power that rules this world, with the prince of this world (the devil); no true follower of the holy apostles is praised, admired, acknowledged, and exalted by the world—on the contrary: the world has always stood, and still stands, hostile toward God, and not only toward God, but also toward all who work for God. The Saviour Himself was persecuted by the prince of the world and said to His disciples: “If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18–19) And in prayer Christ says of His disciples this: “The world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17:14) The whole New Testament bears abundant witness to the necessity that true Christians be persecuted by the world. For all these testimonies one word spoken by the Apostle Paul speaks: “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Tim. 3:12)

From ancient times Christians have kept in memory the struggles of the heroes of the faith and have written them down for the instruction of others—how bravely they conducted themselves in the struggle with the prince of this world, that is, with Satan. Of the holy Vladyka Gorazd likewise, recollections of his co-workers and of other eyewitnesses speak. Some of these recollections we present here. We select those that concern the spiritual theme recalled above.

In restoring the Orthodox Cyrillo-Methodian Church among our nation in the time of the so-called “First Republic,” the Vladyka had also to contend with the state power of that day. Inasmuch as the political programme of the then state leaders was democratic, the Orthodox Church was not openly forbidden; yet the work of restoring Orthodoxy among us was hindered, and attacks upon it came from the highest places of the state. President T. G. Masaryk himself used all his influence (and it was then enormous) to harm the building up of the Orthodox Church among us, and if he could not make it impossible, then at least to make it more difficult, to restrict it, and to complicate it. Many who were interested in Orthodoxy were at that time intimidated by Mr. Masaryk, or simply took fright at his open, rejecting stance toward the restoration of the Orthodox Church among us, which he expressed often and publicly. Masaryk’s authority was immense, and he did not hesitate to use it against the work of the holy Vladyka Gorazd.

Father Protopresbyter Leixner records in his personal chronicle that teachers in the schools were urged from the school administration (the Ministry of Culture) to speak out against Orthodoxy, and that the newspapers refused to publish the Vladyka’s (Gorazd’s) articles (in defence), except as paid advertisements. By way of explanation we add that practically the entire press of that time attacked Vladyka Gorazd, and that it tolerated utterly impossible slanders and disinformation about Orthodoxy—for example, it was then written in the press that the head of the Orthodox Church was the Russian Tsar and the Turkish Sultan, and that whoever became Orthodox had to obey them… and the like—yet the “democrats” gave the Vladyka no opportunity whatever to defend himself, to refute the slanders, and to inform people about true Orthodoxy; every article he had to pay for as an advertisement, and for that the Vladyka did not have enough money… When some school director lent the Orthodox Church a classroom for the celebration of the Sunday divine service, that was an act of great personal courage (usually Roman Catholics or members of the “Czechoslovak Church” immediately denounced such a courageous director to the school authorities, and he had to answer for his deed). Vladyka Gorazd long sought to obtain in Prague for the Orthodox Czechs one of the unused old churches that were in the possession of the city; yet for Orthodox purposes none was permitted to be released—the situation became so notorious that it was said of it: “The Mohammedans will have a mosque in Prague sooner than the Orthodox Czechs will have their church.”

In the work of Schema-Archimandrite Cyril it is written: “President T. G. Masaryk and other leading figures of Czechoslovakia were against the restoration and strengthening of Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia.” T. G. Masaryk, an opponent of Orthodoxy, pressed Vladyka Gorazd to leave the Serbian jurisdiction under which the Orthodox Czechs then belonged (for historical reasons); such a departure, however, would have been immoral and uncanonical toward the mother Serbian Church; St. Gorazd refused arbitrarily to violate the canonical rules of the Orthodox Church and to renounce Serbian jurisdiction. Further we read in Father Cyril’s work: From the year 1928 through the year 1942 inclusive, fourteen churches were built. Great were the successes, but the obstacles were no less great. Against Orthodoxy stood T. G. Masaryk, the socialist political parties, the schismatic Czechoslovak Church, the Roman Catholics, and the Evangelicals, who for example called the Divine Liturgy “golden magic” and mocked everything Orthodox, as Dr. F. Kozák testifies in the work “What Is Truth?” The Roman Catholics called the Orthodox: “irredentists, Bolsheviks, an element unreliable to the state.” How much falsehood there was in that assertion is made clear by the words of the Roman Catholic Dr. Josef Kubalík: “Czech Orthodoxy, thanks to its leader Bishop Gorazd, went purely along religious paths.” (Czech Religion, p. 77)

See also Father Leixner’s article from the collection “Shepherd and Martyr” and the excerpt from his chronicle with the recollection of the difficult beginnings of Orthodoxy in Moravia.

Saint Gorazd – 80th Anniversary⌗

Czech original: Sv. Gorazd – 80. výročí (from Eparchial Calendar 2023)

In 2022 we commemorated the 80th anniversary of the martyrdom of the holy new martyr Gorazd II. The axis of the celebration of the new martyr was a gathering at the monastery dedicated to him in his birthplace of Hrubá Vrbka. After the hierarchical Liturgy in the monastery chapel (see illustration) there followed an educational portion, of which the theme of this article was a part.

Vladyka Gorazd, his person and his work, are a wondrous phenomenon in the ecclesiastical and social history of our nation. As is often the case with giants of the spirit, some in his surroundings regarded him with incomprehension. In his own day they accused him of political aims and of wanting to bring upon us the political influence of Russia. The diplomatic services and the foreign policy of the state tried to make use of his person for their own plans. Parish priests of other churches regarded the Czech Orthodox Church with hostility. And among the Orthodox there was a dispute over jurisdiction. On the practical plane, for mission among the Czechs the Serbian jurisdiction was the most suitable; on the canonical plane, however, its legitimacy was not recognized by Constantinople, and then in fact not by Moscow either. And Gorazd bore this whole cross upon his back. To this day many historians do not understand the Vladyka, and in his stubborn industriousness and perseverance they see, for example, ambition. To a certain extent this is understandable in a non-Orthodox historian. If we did not give priority to spiritual motives and to Orthodox models of sanctity, it would not be possible to understand Gorazd’s personality and work correctly.

The central idea of his missionary work is contained in his saying: “Always and under all circumstances a person must come to know the truth, because without knowledge of the truth we cannot put the truth into practice.”

The Path to Orthodoxy⌗

As originally a Roman Catholic priest, Matěj Pavlík was progressive, and as a patriotically minded man he publicly spoke out against Germanization. Within this stance he sought a way out in an emphasis on the Slavic national belonging of Czechs and Moravians, seeking protection against the Germans—with whose aggression Czech history has experience—in Pan-Slavic unity. In 1905 he became editor of the journal Pozorovatel, where he conducted the columns Political Survey and Slavic Watch, in which he wrote articles about the Slavic lands, about Russia above all. He was a propagator of Slavic mutuality and remained faithful to the journal even when three years later he was appointed spiritual director at the Kroměříž institute for the mentally ill, where he began to study psychology and psychiatry and also dealt with social questions not only of those entrusted to him, but also of the nurses and physicians. Alongside all this he devoted himself also to association activity. He was a member of the patriotic association National Unity and of the singing society Moravan. On 28 September 1913 he even became a member of the Association of Moravian Fine Artists with its seat in Hodonín.

In that period weighty changes took place in Europe: religious, cultural, economic, and political. He lived through the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and could rejoice at the birth of the Czechoslovak Republic as an independent state of Czechs and Slovaks and of the other nationalities living on its territory.

“The birth of the Czechoslovak Republic,” writes Prof. ThDr. Pavel Aleš, “brought many changes into social and spiritual life. They touched the religious sphere markedly as well. An extensive movement arose, led by Catholic clergy of reformist views, which soon swept away by the idea of a national church about half a million people. Matěj Pavlík (today Saint Gorazd) … carried away by the general enthusiasm of the people for the new church, also joined this movement when at the same time, on 11 October 1920, he parted from the Roman Catholic Church.”

How did this come about? During the First World War an ideological rift arose between Father Matěj and the majority of the Roman Catholic clergy, who excused and supported Austro-Hungarian aggression against Serbia. Matěj Pavlík therefore began to publish the journal Právo národa. In this journal articles calling for reforms in the Roman Catholic Church were also printed.

On 1 October 1918 the first issue of the journal came out in Olomouc; for its founding he devoted all his savings and even went into debt with a loan. This journal soon became the vanguard of the reform movement of the Czechoslovak clergy, and Pavlík’s contributions, together with the activity of the Club of Reform Priests, played a significant role in the rise of the Czechoslovak Church.

In the autumn of 1918, when social changes began to take place in Czechoslovakia, Father Matěj was stricken with a serious eye disease. After a long hospitalization Father Matěj went into early retirement. He was threatened with blindness, yet he did not cease from his activity. He ended one of his lectures with the words: “I shall go blind, but my nation shall see.”

At that time around half a million Roman Catholics, priests and faithful, left the Roman Catholic Church and laid the foundation of the new Czechoslovak Church—a church without a hierarchy, without connection to the universal Church—with which Father Matěj could not agree. Despite great resistance from the radicals, thanks to Father Matěj the first sobor of the Czechoslovak Church adopted Orthodox dogmatics and the principles of Orthodox ethics. On 21 April 1921, at a congress of the church communities of Moravia, Father Matěj prevailed over the radical wing in the matter of Orthodox orientation. The conclusions of this congress influenced the course of the deliberations of the Church’s Central Committee held on 7 May 1921 and of the second sobor of 19 August of the same year. Then the final decision was adopted that the Church accept Orthodox doctrine and all the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The second sobor decided that the religious movement would be called the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church and elected three candidates for episcopal consecration: Father Matěj Pavlík, ThDr. Karel Farský, and Rudolf Pařík. Present at the sobor was a delegate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Vladyka Dositej, and thus doctrinal and canonical communion was established with all the local Orthodox Churches.

Yet in this new religious movement in Bohemia and Moravia, from its beginning, differences of opinion deepened and crystallized. Saint Vladyka Gorazd perceived in time and understood the danger of extreme radicalism in the movement and the necessity of grounding its spiritual life upon the original Tradition of the Church, the faith of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the apostolic succession of the episcopate. Because he was distinguished by rich knowledge in the field of church history, by examining this problem he came to the conviction that such is the Orthodox Church, toward which earlier generations of outstanding personalities of our nations had oriented themselves, especially the national awakeners, writers, and philosophers. Therefore already the first sobor of the new church adopted Orthodox ethics and an Orthodox formulation of doctrine, which is unthinkable without the theology of the Holy Fathers and patristic tradition in general.

On 29 August 1921 Matěj Pavlík was unanimously elected bishop of the Czechoslovak Church for the Moravian and Silesian region. A year earlier—on 3 September 1920—he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by the Archbishop of Olomouc. The newly arising church sought support from the Serbian Orthodox Church. The conclusions of the second sobor served for the deliberations of the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Church, which on 7 September 1921 elected Father Matěj Pavlík as a candidate for episcopal consecration for the Moravia-Silesia eparchy with its see in Olomouc. The following candidates for episcopal consecration were also elected: ThDr. Karel Farský for the western eparchy with its see in Prague, and Rudolf Pařík for the eastern eparchy with its see in Kutná Hora. Father Matěj was invited by His Holiness Patriarch Dimitrije to Belgrade for episcopal consecration. Regarding himself as unworthy, Father Matěj hesitated to accept episcopal consecration, but in the end he submitted to the will of the Church.

On 21 September 1921, on Fruška Gora in the Lavra of Krušedol, Father Matěj received monastic tonsure, which was performed by Vladykas Dositej and Maximilian. At the monastic tonsure Father Matěj was given the new name Gorazd, in honour of St. Gorazd, disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius and Archbishop of Moravia. On the following day, 22 September, Hieromonk Gorazd was elevated to the rank of hegumen at the monastery of Gergetek; on the same day he was raised at the monastery of Hopovo to the rank of archimandrite. On 24 September 1921 the rite of nomination as a candidate for episcopal consecration was performed over Archimandrite Gorazd. The following day, 25 September, in the Cathedral of St. Michael in Belgrade, the consecration of Archimandrite Gorazd as bishop took place. The consecration was led by His Holiness Patriarch Dimitrije, with the participation of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan Varnava, Bishop Dositej, and Bishop Josif.

Building the Czech Orthodox Church⌗

The moral orientation for Saint Vladyka was the awareness that one must enter upon so great a work with full commitment, and that one cannot jest about such a thing, that it is not possible to manoeuvre or even to deceive. He was evidently disgusted by the voices of those who almost proposed pretending Orthodox faith and thus obtaining from the Serbian Church apostolic succession—that is, episcopal consecration—and thereafter going their own way. Such ideas he zealously refuted as unserious, cunning, and immoral. He long hesitated and felt himself an insufficient person for such a task. When, in fact partly against his wish, they consecrated him bishop, until the end of his days he let nothing distract him and devoted all his time, energy, abilities, education, and strength to the fulfilment of the task he had accepted—to restore here the Cyrillo-Methodian Church and to lead it as its shepherd.

When the celebrations after the episcopal consecration ended, a time of hard work began. Most of the Vladyka’s strength was taken up by the struggle with the ill-disposed. Perhaps the hardest thing was to ward off the attacks of the resentful, the slanderers, and outright enemies. Of this he himself used a paraphrase of the biblical citation about the building of Jerusalem: with one hand we built and with the other we had to defend ourselves. As Gorazd himself said, the worst were not the attacks of outsiders, but the moral failures of some of his own people.

Against Orthodoxy there came forward T. G. Masaryk, the socialist political parties, the Czechoslovak Church, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals, who for example called the holy Liturgy “golden magic” and laughed at everything Orthodox, as Dr. F. Kozák testifies in the work What Is Truth?. Roman Catholics called the Orthodox “irredentists (striving for annexation to Russia), Bolsheviks, an element unreliable to the state.” How much falsehood there was in that assertion is clear from the words of the Roman Catholic Dr. Josef Kubalík: “Czech Orthodoxy, thanks to its leader Bishop Gorazd, went purely religious ways.” (Czech Religion, p. 77).

Slanders about Orthodoxy and attacks upon the Orthodox were gladly reprinted by some newspapers, but when the Vladyka wanted to reply, he was offered only the possibility of publishing his explanation in the form of paid advertising. For that, however, the Vladyka did not have so much money.

Certain persons eagerly spread about Orthodoxy the slanders that the ruler of the Church in Russia is the Tsar and in Constantinople the Sultan, and that whoever becomes Orthodox must obey them. When the Orthodox in Prague sought an unused church for their house of worship, negotiations several times advanced, but then were suddenly terminated without explanation, with a vague reference to intervention from higher places of the political and state administration. The ill will was so obvious that it was said: “The Mohammedans will sooner have a mosque in Prague than the Orthodox their church.”

What has remained and is visible to all are the Orthodox churches—from large ones to small chapels. We are all aware that the survival and growth of the Orthodox Church is inseparably bound up with the obtaining of one’s own houses of worship, in which the services are celebrated, which are the axis around which the whole of church life turns. St. Gorazd subsidized from his personal means, among other things, also the building of these houses of worship. Vladyka Gorazd’s cash ledger is proof that from his own income he supported clergy, the building of churches, many Orthodox faithful, and also people in need without distinction of religious confession.

God granted that Gorazd be an active restorer of Orthodoxy among us, a restorer of the apostolic and Cyrillo-Methodian Tradition in all areas of church life. He himself became bishop of the restored Church and in the present time also its saint for his faithfulness to the faith, the Church, and the nation.

The Struggle for Orthodoxy⌗

Shortly after Bishop Gorazd’s return the radicals launched in the press an attack against Orthodoxy. Bishop Gorazd regarded this as dishonourable and spoke out against it at public gatherings in Prague–Smíchov, Benešov, Tábor, Stará Paka, and České Budějovice. The radicals, with the help of the socialist majority in the government of the Czechoslovak Republic, made it impossible for Bishop Gorazd to continue publicly defending the Orthodox orientation. Vladyka Gorazd, however, did not give up and made use of every opportunity that presented itself. Among other things he said: “A Church that would act with such mental reservation (limitation) would not deserve the name of a religious society, still less of a Christian Church. From such a ‘church’ all honourable people would turn away in disgust, and with such a ‘church’ the true Church would refuse to negotiate. Such conduct would bring upon our Church, and upon our nation as well, the shame of treachery… If the Czechoslovak Church is resolved not to acknowledge traditional Christianity, it would be necessary to say so openly, and it would likewise be necessary consistently to declare that it has no need of consecrated bishops or consecrated priests. If, however, it insists on the consecration of priests and bishops, traditional Christianity must not be brushed aside.” In the journal Za Pravdou in 1922 he writes: “It would be a sign of a truly (boundless) breadth of conscience to resolve upon acceptance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the seven Ecumenical Councils, and further upon acceptance of the name Czechoslovak Orthodox Church… and at the same time to laugh at everything Orthodox: both at the articles of faith and at the rites.”

In July 1922 Vladyka Gorazd was sent on a missionary journey to America, to the Czech colonies. During his work in America the radicalists launched an open attack against Orthodoxy by issuing a new church catechism whose authors proclaim unbelief in the Holy Trinity, in the Divinity of Jesus, and so on. Teaching concerning the Most Holy Theotokos was rejected. The consequences were not long in coming. The Serbian Church broke communion with the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church. Bishop Gorazd returned from America in order to speak out against the heresies on the spot; he knew, of course, that the days of his work among the adherents of error were numbered. He strove to save those of the faithful whom the bacillus of heresy had not yet entirely overcome. Vladyka Gorazd continued for yet another whole year the struggle with the radicalists and strove to confirm in the truths of Orthodoxy as great a number as possible of the members of the Czechoslovak Church.

There are two reasons why the majority of the faithful of the nascent Czechoslovak Orthodox Church abandoned the original Orthodox orientation. Some found delight in a modernist, extremely Protestant church which by its teaching and church life in fact already stood beyond the boundary of Christianity and thus responded to certain contemporary intellectual tendencies (modernism, syncretism). Others were influenced by their clergy, who had a priestly salary in the Czechoslovak Church, whereas by transferring to Gorazd they would walk into uncertainty. Besides this we may take into account oral testimonies originating from the milieu of the then Czechoslovak Church, according to which many clergy and faithful supposedly believed that the whole schism in the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church was caused only by the personal ambitions of the leader of the radicals. It was supposedly held that after his departure the Czechoslovak Church would again unite and return to Orthodox teaching. And besides that it was a time when the solving of church questions was full of passions, personal ambitions, and ideological disputes. Few in this whirl of diverse ideas and visions served primarily the thought of a sincere and tradition-tested path to God.

The ecclesiastically and spiritually chaotic time, when it was not self-evident to find one’s bearings and hold the course set, is reflected in the kontakion sung to our saint:

“In the midst of streams of spiritual uncertainty thou didst remain in the truth as a diamond most hard and to thy native nation thou didst proclaim the path of salvation, Orthodoxy…”

After the schism in the Czechoslovak Church, when Gorazd and those faithful to him had to leave the heretical fellowship which rejects even faith in the Holy Trinity, the situation of the Orthodox took shape such that on the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic three bishops of different jurisdictions were active: Gorazd—Serbian jurisdiction; Savvatij—Constantinopolitan jurisdiction; and Sergij—jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (primarily for the Russian emigration). Tense relations existed especially between Vladyka Savvatij and Vladyka Gorazd (or rather between their camps). By coincidence the then state also engaged itself in the dispute over jurisdiction and pressed Vl. Gorazd to leave the Serbian jurisdiction. In the background was diplomacy between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Kingdom of Serbia. For submitting to the wish uttered on the part of the state administration, Gorazd was offered that from the state administration he would receive official recognition as head of the Orthodox in the republic. Vladyka Gorazd stood among us as a pillar of Orthodoxy; “in the midst of streams of spiritual uncertainty he was as a hard diamond,” preserving canonical unity with the Serbian Patriarchate which had consecrated and appointed him, and through it with the Orthodox world. In teaching about God (theology) Saint Vladyka Gorazd holds to the fundamental principles of Scripture and the Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium after Christ. In church practice he acts as a leader who leads the flock entrusted to him toward the goal set. He proceeds from the foundations, beginning by introducing the main principles and guidelines, so as not to lose his faithful and by excessive haste not to discourage them from the richness of the thousand-year Orthodox tradition.

Cyrillo-Methodianism⌗

It was the starting point of Gorazd’s path to Orthodoxy, and this idea bore him like a ship above all the spiritual currents swirling through Czech society; it bore him through all his pastoral effort to build the Czech Orthodox Church, which had woven into its foundations the realization of an authentically Cyrillo-Methodian legacy.

Already during his lifetime people made it clear to him how they were addressed by these ideals:

“How many strangers who were at our services for the first time expressed that they had the impression as if in it they saw and heard something that had been hidden in their soul and that as it were rose up from their subconscious. They had the impression that there was returning to them the dear, warm, and sunny heritage of their forefathers and great-grandfathers, and as if above all that they saw and heard there floated the clear, exalted, and kindly figures of the holy Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius.” (St. Gorazd II)

“Well then, wherein does Orthodoxy see its task? In this: that it, as ‘a tender form of Christianity making possible true religious life,’ as some specialists have characterized it, should develop among us also for the benefit of the faithful and of society as a whole. I am convinced that precisely the Orthodox Church is capable of spreading this awareness among the faithful, both by its religious essence and also because it has never in history found itself in conflict with our national idea, and that it cannot even find itself in such a conflict, because in it there is truly a directly classical union of Christianity and humanism. Where there is true and living Christianity, there is also morality, there is also humanity, there is also social feeling, there is also inner strength; there is also eternal salvation.” (On the Character of the Orthodox Church, from From His Works, p. 296.)

In the area of Cyrillo-Methodianism Vladyka Gorazd even manifested a prophetic gift. For in his historical studies he assumed concerning the Cyrillo-Methodian mission facts that in his day were not yet known (they were confirmed only in the periods after the Second World War in excavations).

Aims of the Work⌗

Gorazd wished to bring among us the spirit of Orthodoxy, with which he had become acquainted in the East, and at the same time to link up with our local spiritual roots—to build upon the foundations that had already been laid here—that is, upon the Cyrillo-Methodian mission. After all, after Methodius’s disciple Gorazd I he was, after a thousand years, the first Orthodox bishop in Moravia. Gorazd I was driven out by enemies and so could not take up his see; thus from the standpoint of our Church Vladyka Gorazd II became the first successor of St. Methodius after the year 885. Alongside all this he was aware that this Church being rebuilt must be an apostolic Church, that is, a part of the world Church founded by Christ’s holy apostles.

Liturgy⌗

Thanks to Gorazd there appeared the fundamental Czech liturgical book People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church, which was the basic liturgical handbook of Gorazd’s Orthodox Church. The initial use of an adapted and Bohemianized Western rite of the holy Mass was ended.

Church practice Vladyka Gorazd constantly developed step by step toward what he called full Orthodoxy; see his preface to the People’s Collection of Prayers and Chants: “I regard this collection as a mere temporary aid. When it has fulfilled its task, it will be possible to proceed to the issuance of a more perfect and complete hymnbook… It is a matter of a method of missionary work in the liturgical field…” Of the opponents of this missionary procedure “step by step” he wrote that they are people who “understand neither popular psychology nor method.” That the collection was, given the circumstances, a leap forward is witnessed by Gorazd’s words: “The collection means… a considerable advance for the inner life of the Church.” (Quoted from the preface to the collection, year 1933)

In liturgical and pastoral or missionary matters Vladyka Gorazd understood that on the one hand it is necessary to preserve the Orthodox liturgical order (that is, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the like), and on the other hand it is needful to adapt this order so that it may satisfy the missionary intentions and pastoral needs of the Church in his concrete time and at the given place. Therefore on the one hand he finally rejected all efforts and requests for the long-term preservation of the Western liturgical order in the local Orthodox Church he led, but on the other hand he did not take over any of the national Eastern liturgical traditions—neither the Russian, nor the Serbian, nor the Greek—but created a kind of Czech adaptation of the Orthodox liturgikon intended for his faithful in the interwar period. For the future he counted on the development of the Czech model he had created so that there might arise a specifically Czech liturgical tradition which would take its place among the other world traditions and to which, as regards content, no one would be able to object incompleteness or poverty of content.

The contemporary Orthodox Church has more or less appropriated this principle of Gorazd’s work, and thus no traditions foreign to the Czechs are introduced here, but a new local tradition is slowly being formed. It does not refuse inspirations from the great historical Churches (as Vladyka Gorazd did not fear them), but selects from them what addresses contemporary Czechs, and from the sources of ancient traditions and of local sources weaves a distinctive local liturgical life. Liturgical life must not be a formality detached from spiritual life, but on the contrary. The Liturgy is not only the axis of spiritual life, but bears within itself deep experience, a powerful didactic force, and above all the making present and embodiment of our faith—the presence of Christ in the midst of his people. And therefore it must not only be understood (the requirement of an intelligible liturgical language); it must be comprehensible and assimilable for the faithful, both as to form and as to content. For his contemporaries the Vladyka shortened the Liturgy (he abolished the repetition of certain elements) and as it were compressed it, which was once beneficial for mission among the Czechs. Today this adaptation is no longer so needful; we can bring the content of the Liturgy closer to the Czechs by implementing elements of certain traditions (for example Greek ones) which express ancient liturgical forms and expressions and thereby add authenticity to the liturgical service.

The embodiment of the Vladyka’s project of a missionary form of the Czech Liturgy was thus the People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church (prepared with a collective; first edition 1933–34). The familiar name “Gorazd’s Collection” came into use. By it the Vladyka ended the period of services from various provisional texts, which were a mixture of Western and Eastern worship or even of Protestant influences, and contained serious theological errors. It must be acknowledged that in some parishes clergy and faithful stubbornly resisted the introduction of the true Eastern Liturgy with the Octoechos. Likewise in places the faithful resisted the erection of an iconostasis. The Vladyka had to devote much effort to explaining and persuading people before they consented to Eastern worship and the Eastern arrangement of the church. He had to endure many attacks against the People’s Collection and met with much misunderstanding. The Vladyka wrote that he wished that there be continuance further in the liturgical work which on the foundations of the People’s Collection would build further the edifice of the fullness of liturgical life. Such is the legacy of Saint Vladyka in the liturgical sphere.

St. Gorazd’s Twenty-Year Path⌗

Bishop Gorazd regarded himself as a mere forerunner of a further Orthodox bishop, for whom he was preparing foundations for the development of church activity and smoothing the way. He laid the organizational and doctrinal foundations of the Czech Orthodox Church; with his co-workers he created the structure of church communities; for each a church was built (often also with his material support), and in one case also a rectory. With great effort he secured for his priests the state financial support to which they were entitled by law, and which enabled them fully to devote themselves to work for the Church.

The foundations of his Czech liturgical work are more or less used to this day. Because he was also musically gifted, he himself secured the singing and musical side of Czech services; he personally travelled through the parishes teaching priests and faithful these liturgical melodies.

He secured canonical internal arrangement and external canonical communion with Orthodoxy in the world. A church Constitution was issued.

He devoted himself to publishing activity and as author of the most important books procured for his Church basic materials in Czech: besides historical studies in which he convincingly and with deep foundation demonstrated the Orthodoxy of Cyrillo-Methodianism, the belonging of the oldest Czech saints to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and the legitimacy of Orthodoxy in this land, for its presence reaches back to the beginning of the nation’s Christian history, he gave the Church a Czech Orthodox catechism, a liturgical order, and rules for clergy.

He carefully secured or oversaw the regular issuance of a quality Orthodox journal, which provided the faithful with spiritual encouragement, education, enlightenment, reporting, and internal church communication, and welded the Church together. (He himself wrote hundreds of articles for it.)

In him the Church had at its head a pious man, highly grounded morally and ethically, with outstanding pastoral abilities, a penetrating intellect, deeply educated, versatilely talented, unbelievably industrious and zealous bishop. In his humility he apparently never even realized this, but someone better from the Czech nation after him could hardly have come.

The Vladyka was a sincere man of prayer, a missionary of an apostolic spirit. It must be said that he personally knew every Orthodox family of his eparchy. He excelled also as a preacher. He was distinguished by personal modesty, consistency, self-discipline, industriousness, piety, love, humility, and faith and surrender to the will of God. (Written by Archim. Cyril Pospíšil.)

The Vladyka was also a great patriot, yet free of various nationalist and chauvinist extremes. In this spirit he formed the clergy and the faithful.

Certainly, to write of the outstanding qualities of this bishop may strike a reader who does not know his life and the fruits of his work in detail as exaggerated panegyric. Certainly he too had—like anyone else—also his worse qualities; at times he was reportedly even overly stubborn and unyielding; he was reportedly able to become fairly angry (for which he then apologized to all). Moreover he was reportedly sometimes perhaps even too strict and demanding toward his co-workers. At the beginning he heard their opinions and they considered them together; once he had decided, he no longer wished to hear any objections or remarks. He did not overlook failure to fulfil an agreed task. He was able to rebuke sharply. He required precision from his co-workers. Not everyone was able to bear it.

Clergy and faithful sometimes had the feeling that one should proceed more slowly in the penetration of the fullness of Orthodox forms into the life of their Church and make more (for example liturgical) compromises. But he reportedly behaved as if his whole missionary work were in haste, rapidly advancing by a swift path forward toward the goal set. Once he declared that he must hurry with his work, because soon he would no longer be able to do anything. (The events of the Second World War as it were gave him right; whoever wishes may see in this a further of Gorazd’s prophetic sayings.)

Gorazd’s Clergy⌗

Already from September 1924 the Vladyka sent the first students of theology to Serbia. He worked tirelessly for the development of the Orthodox mission. In the work Memorial on the Legal Position of the Orthodox Church in the Czechoslovak Republic the Vladyka, by research and work in the archives, demonstrated the state’s unjust attitude toward Orthodoxy, when other confessions received from the state many times greater financial support. The Orthodox Church received only a tiny portion of the surplus of the state budget—only 35 percent of the sum that belonged to it according to the law.

Gorazd’s clerical corps was at first composed of former Roman Catholic priests. The Vladyka had to teach these clergy individually Orthodox norms and customs. For there were cases when individual clergy gave themselves over to unorthodox practices and ways of life. Some imitated the Roman Catholics, others the Protestants, or even sympathized with the practices of the modernist “Czechoslovak Church.” The Vladyka emphasized that a priest must live for the spiritual flock and that his whole family must be an example of an Orthodox Christian family. As the Vladyka himself remarked, worse for him than the attacks of opponents was disappointment in some of his own people, in more than one young person.

He himself was very strict and demanding toward himself. In his person severity, love, and truth were united. The Vladyka was an opponent of compromises except those that were temporarily necessary for pastoral and missionary reasons, as is proved by the fact that in every respect he abandoned earlier compromises and introduced no new ones into life. His Rules for Clergy are evidence of this.

Organization of the Eparchy⌗

In 1927 the organization of the Czech Orthodox Religious Community passed to the level of an eparchy. One of Vladyka Gorazd’s many aims was that every church community should have its own church and rectory. The Orthodox faithful already from 1921 under the leadership of Bishop Gorazd built—mostly from their own means—eleven churches and two chapels. The Vladyka had to expend much administrative effort and patience, for only on 11 September 1929 did approval come from the Serbian Church and from the government of the Czechoslovak Republic, so that the church administration of the Orthodox Church began legally to exist at the level of an eparchy. Despite great obstacles, within four years the Vladyka achieved a resolution of the jurisdictional question, obtained the congrua (state contribution to the clergy), and strengthened the organizational structure of Orthodoxy in the Czechoslovak Republic at the level of two eparchies (the Bohemian and the Moravia-Silesia, Subcarpathian Rus).

The War⌗

Christianity does not enter into politics, following Christ, who refused to enter into war with the Roman occupiers. We hear the Lord saying: “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) The Church from the beginning, according to the apostle’s instruction, prays for worldly rulers and obeys them in civil matters, provided they do not contradict the principles of faith and service to God. (Rom. 13:1–7)

This attitude, however, has its limits, which lie where the murder of people by some political force begins, totalitarianism, aggressive war, the violent imposition of an inhuman monstrous ideology, crimes against humanity, and the like. To such diabolical manifestations a Christian must stand opposed—by word and, if need be, also by deed.

Of the Nazi Hitlerite ideology Vl. Gorazd wrote the critical work The Theory of the Inequality of Human Races (critical reflection; written in 1941).

In 1938 the Germans attacked Czechoslovakia, betrayed by its allies. Against this injustice Saint Vladyka Gorazd was the first to speak out, in his letter sent to the heads of all the autocephalous Churches. Much later Cardinal-Archbishop Beran of Prague spoke out against the injustice. In many addresses Saint Vladyka encouraged the faithful people in moments most grievous for the nation.

In 1938 in the name of the Orthodox Czechs Bishop Gorazd declared: “We are obliged for the republic, its freedom and democracy to bring sacrifices, even if it should perhaps demand that we lay down our life. If we go united one after another, then we shall endure and in the end we shall conquer.”

In this spirit of Vladyka Gorazd’s legacy our eparchy in Moravia also in the present has taken its stance toward Russian aggression in Ukraine.

On 27 May 1942 the assassination of Acting Reich Protector R. Heydrich was carried out. For the parachutists who carried out the assassination a hiding place was sought. They found refuge in the crypt of the Orthodox Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius (original name of the church: St. Charles Borromeo) in Resslova Street in Prague.

After the discovery of the hiding place Gorazd sent letters to the Acting Reich Protector and to the then representatives of the Czechoslovak government, in which he wrote that he placed his person at their disposal and wished to submit even to the death penalty in order to save the Czech Orthodox Church. On 25 June 1942 at five o’clock in the morning he was arrested, and after two months of interrogation and torture, together with his companions, on 3 September 1942 a summary court sentenced him to death by shooting. The sentence was carried out the next day at the Kobylisy shooting range.

On 27 September there then came into force a decree of this wording: “The Czech-Orthodox Churches of the Serbian and Constantinopolitan jurisdictions in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia are hereby dissolved. Every activity is forbidden to them. The property of these Churches is confiscated for the benefit of the Reich.”

Vladyka Gorazd died as the bishops-martyrs of old, who suffered, being true shepherds laying down their life for the sheep and for the Church. (John 10:11)

In 1945 the Orthodox Church was restored, and Vladyka Gorazd, Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia, was posthumously decorated with the Czechoslovak War Cross. In 1987 the new martyr Gorazd was glorified as a saint in Olomouc by our local Orthodox Church.

Survey of Gorazd’s Literary Work:⌗

• Constitution of the Orthodox Eparchy in the Land of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia (approved and issued in print, 1929–30)

• Memorial on the Legal Position of the Orthodox Church in the Czechoslovak Republic (1932) (It belongs among his most significant works.)

• People’s Collection of Prayers and Liturgical Chants of the Orthodox Church (prepared with a collective; first edition 1933–34, second ed. 1951) (For long decades the basic service book of the Czech Orthodox Church.)

• Orthodox Catechism (first edition 1940, second edition 1950) (booklet available on the web online)

• Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Their Relation to Rome and Constantinople (under the pseudonym “P. Malý,” 1936) (booklet available on the web online)

• Guide to the Cathedral Church of St. Gorazd in Olomouc (these are brief lives of the saints; compiled in 1940; issued 1987)

• Rules for Clergy (1941)

• Deduction Document (historico-legal study for judicial proceedings; 1942) (available on the web online)

• The Germanization of Czech Regions (historico-religious study; issued in the book Bishop Gorazd: From His Works) (historical study available on the web online)

• The Theory of the Inequality of Human Races (critical reflection; written in 1941; issued 1999)

• What Life Brought (written after 1938; issued 1999)

• After the First World War (written after 1938; issued 1999)

• Danger (written after 1938; issued 1999) (Historico-religious study; issued in the book Bishop Gorazd: From His Works)

• Many articles in the press. He founded the weekly Za pravdou (1921). (In the journal Za pravdou (1921–1930) he published 172 longer articles and a quantity of shorter commentaries and biblical reflections. In another journal, Bulletin of the Czech Orthodox Eparchy (1930–1942), he printed 101 longer articles and many biblical Sunday meditations.)

Further there was issued: Biblical History for Pupils of the 1st–4th Years of Elementary Schools (1927)

See: orthodoxia.cz/gorazd

— source: Eparchial Calendar 2023 (Saint Gorazd – 80th Anniversary)

Articles about St Gorazd Translation into English

Contents⌗

From Shepherd and Martyr (Pastýř a martyr)⌗

Other articles⌗

From Shepherd and Martyr⌗

Gorazd in the Choir of God’s Saints⌗

Restorer of True Cyrillo-Methodian Christianity⌗

A Few Words in Memory of Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Saint Gorazd II and the Patristic Tradition of the Primitive Church⌗

The Doctrinal Profile of Vladyka Gorazd⌗

The Liturgical Activity of Saint Bishop Gorazd: Foundations, Conception, Aims⌗

The Pastoral Work of Our Saint⌗

The Organization of Pastoral Care⌗

The Pastoral Conversation and Immediate Help⌗

Visits to the Families of Orthodox Faithful and of Those of Other Confessions⌗

Visits to the Sick⌗

The Teaching of Religion⌗

Correspondence Pastoral Care and the Significance of the Church Press in the Pastoral-Missionary Work of the Church⌗

Music and Song in the Life and Work of St. Gorazd⌗

Notes⌗

Vladyka Gorazd the Preacher⌗

The Apostle⌗

The Preparation of Seminarians under the Guidance of St. Gorazd⌗

Patriotism in the Life of Bishop Gorazd⌗

Patriotism in the Life of the Holy New Martyr Bishop Gorazd⌗

Holy Vladyka Gorazd, Venerator of the Venerable St. Sergius of Radonezh⌗

Through the Eyes of a Child⌗

A Few Pictures from Memories — Three Meetings with Vladyka Gorazd⌗

Three Meetings with Vladyka Gorazd⌗

What Bishop Gorazd Was Like⌗

Vladyka Gorazd and Our Press⌗

Vladyka Gorazd, the Righteous One and Martyr⌗

Vladyka Gorazd, the Righteous One⌗

The Martyrdom of the Holy Vladyka⌗

The Martyrdom of the Holy Vladyka⌗

The Holy Martyr Gorazd and His Legacy⌗

The Holy Martyr Gorazd and His Legacy — Epilogue⌗

Postscript⌗

Footnotes⌗

Brothers and Sisters!⌗

Epilogue⌗

Other Articles⌗

The Life and Work of St. Gorazd, Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia, New Martyr⌗

The Spiritual Struggle of St. Gorazd II with the World⌗

Saint Gorazd – 80th Anniversary⌗

The Path to Orthodoxy⌗

Building the Czech Orthodox Church⌗

The Struggle for Orthodoxy⌗

Cyrillo-Methodianism⌗

Aims of the Work⌗

Liturgy⌗

St. Gorazd’s Twenty-Year Path⌗

Gorazd’s Clergy⌗

Organization of the Eparchy⌗

The War⌗

Survey of Gorazd’s Literary Work:⌗