Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was keenly interested in the patristic tradition (especially the Greek patristic tradition) as part of his platform to reform both Theology and education. Most prominent among those whom he studied were the Cappadocian Fathers, esp. St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian (with whom Melanchthon also included St. Gregory Thaumaturgus). Melanchthon consider St. Basil as a “pillar of orthodoxy” alongside St. Augustine because he found in Basil’s homily On Penance an echo of the Lutheran doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.
Melanchthon’s Roman Catholic critics, however, were not oblivious to the irony of his simultaneous appeals to Basil and sharp criticisms of monasticism. They accused Melanchthon of hypocrisy and of intellectual dishonesty, since Basil has written a rule for vocation Melanchthon held in low regard. Modern critics (viz., Meijering) as well often cite this reality as an example of Melanchthon’s poor skills and inconsistencies as a patristic scholar.
Melanchthon himself responded, however, with an articulation of Basil’s Rule that is commonly accepted today. My short communication will detail Melanchthon’s response, which was two-fold: first, he asserted that the kind of monasticism described by Basil in the Rule was indeed laudatory though it had very little in common with the form of monasticism practiced in late medieval Germany; second, he argued (correctly) that the portions of the Rule that seemed to undergird his opponents’ understanding of monasticism were later additions which could not have come from the pen of St. Basil.
Thus, Melanchthon was able to continue to claim the “full” Basilian heritage for the Lutheran cause and maintain his criticism of late medieval monasticism. Moreover, from a scholar’s point of view, Melanchthon demonstrates consistency with his sources and his “theological reading/criticism” of historical sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment