Matthew of Cracow
Renowned scholar and preacher of the fourteenth century, b. at Cracow about 1335, d. at Pisa, 5 March, 1410. The view, once generally held, that he was descended from the Pomeranian noble family of Crakow, is now entirely discredited (cf. Sommererlad, “Matthäus von Krakow”, 1891). His father was probably a notary in Cracow. Entering the University of Prague, Matthew graduated bachelor of arts in 1355 and master in 1357, and later filled for several terms the office of dean in the same faculty. In 1387 we first find documentary reference to him as professor of theology, and one manuscript speaks of him as “city preacher of Prague”. About 1382 he headed an embassy from his university to Urban VI, before whom he delivered a dissertation in favour of reform. Accepting an invitation from the University of Heidelberg, he joined its professorial staff in 1395, and a year later was appointed rector. In 1395 he was named councillor to Ruprecht II, and the raising of Ruprecht III to the dignity of King of Rome in 1400 marks the beginning of Matthew’s career as a statesman. Frequently employed by the king both at court and on embassies, he appeared at Rome in 1403 to solicit Boniface IX’s confirmation of Reprechet’s claims. On the elevation of Innocent VII to the papal throne in 1404, Matthew greeted him on behalf of Ruprecht. During the same year Matthew was appointed Bishop of Worms, but, beyond his settling of the dispute between the people and clergy of that city, we know little of his episcopal activity.
That he continued to reside in Heidelberg is very probable, and also that he continued to act as professor. Gregory XII wished to name him Cardinal Priest of S. Cyriaci in Thermis, but Matthew declined the honour. As ambassador of Ruprecht to the Council of Pisa, he displayed the greatest zeal on behalf of Gregory XII, whom he regarded as the legitimate occupant of the papal throne. He was a very prolific theological writer. Apart from Biblical commentaries, sermons, and works on current topics, the most important of his writings are: “De consolatione theologiae”; “De modo confitendi”; “De puritate conscientiae”; “De corpore Christi”; “De celebratione Missae”. That he wrote “De arte moriendi”—to be distinguished from a similar work by Cardinal Capran—cannot be maintained with certainty, and recent investigation has shown beyond doubt that the work “De squaloribus curiae Romanae” is not from his hands (Scheuffgen, “Beiträge zur Gesch. Des grossen Schismas”, 1889, p. 91).
———————————–
In addition to the works already mentioned, consult SOMMERFELDT, Zu M.’ kanzelredner. Schriften in Deutsche Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., XXII (Tubingen, 1901), 465-84; XXV (1904), 604-25; LOFFEN, Staat u. Kirche in der Pfalz am Ausgange des M. A. (1907), 45 sqq; BLIEMETZRIEDER, Matthaus v. K., der Verfasser der Postillen in Studien u. Mitteil. aus dem Benediktiner- u. dem Cisterzienerorden, XXV (1904), 544-56; FINKE in Kirchenlex, s.v. Matthaus von Krakau.
THOMAS KENNEDY Transcribed by Rita Muller Dedicated to my father Joseph Matthews and his brother Gerald Matthews; may you both rest in the eternal peace of God’s Love.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XCopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Matthew Of Cracow
(more accurately of Krokow, in Pomerania), a noted German prelate of the Church of Rome, and worthy to be counted foremost among the forerunners of the great Reformation, was a native of Pomerania, and flourished near the opening of the 15th century. But little is known of his personal history, except that he was made by the emperor Rupert a professor in the young University of Heidelberg; afterwards became chancellor to Rupert, and through the latter’s influence became bishop of Worms in 1405, and that he attended the Council of Pisa in 1409, and died in 1410. But of his labors we know enough to award him great praise as an ardent and faithful worker for reform among the clergy of his Church. Indeed, the corrupt condition of the Romish Church, and especially of the ecclesiastical body, seems to have early engaged his serious attention. In 1384 he delivered a discourse on the improvement of morals, both in priests and people, before an archiepiscopal synod in Prague; and, as he began then, so he continued through life to battle for reform and the eradication of corruption, and the abandonment of simony and other vile practices. Both with his tongue and by his pen he sought to advance the interests of the noble cause he had espoused, and, as his position secured him great influence, his labors were certainly not in vain. For his day and generation he was no doubt another cardinal Julian (q.v.). He desired reform rather than a revolution, and therefore failed to accomplish his mission.
Matthew left behind him a number of MSS., some of which were afterwards printed. Among the most noted of his works is a treatise on the pollutions of the Romish court, which appears to have been written a little previous to the year 1409, about the period when the schism in the papacy seemed to open a door for conscientious minds to cherish doubts, at least privately, yet sufficiently to afford a leaven for the future, respecting the boasted infallibility of the popes, and the degree of implicit faith and obedience due to their appointments and decisions. It may be that the weakness occasioned by this papal schism furnished a reason why the author of so bold an attack on the prevailing corruptions did not encounter the hostility and persecution of the ecclesiastical powers. His favor with the emperor was an additional source of impunity, and probably also his early death after the publication of the work. We have no information of the effect immediately produced by the treatise, but it shows that the harvest of the 16th century was even then in its germ, and it seems like some of the seed towards the harvest, sown for a hundred years, to produce fruit in the times of Luther and Melancthon. See Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, vol. 1; Hodgson, Reformers and Martyrs (Phila. 1867, 12mo), p. 118 sq. (J. H. W.)