tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8264294460985285444..comments2024-02-04T15:10:18.485-05:00Comments on The Continuum: Hooker: A sermon about heresiesFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60320445359631210122010-09-14T08:10:09.806-04:002010-09-14T08:10:09.806-04:00Dear Fr. Wells,
The rough going is (as I think yo...Dear Fr. Wells,<br /><br />The rough going is (as I think you suggest) also exhilaratingly thorough-going (though, to imagine a white-water image, we do have to hold on to the raft!). 'Judicious Hooker', indeed!<br /><br />(It is interesting to compare Lewis's remarks, in the OHEL vol., of the stylistic shortcomings of More's manner of thoroughness in his controversial works.)<br /><br />Your first quotation makes me hope when I become less semi- (if 'hemi-demi-semi-' be not more accurate, in terms of how much I've read, so far) Hookerian, I may encounter him considering the matter (if not the text) of the Council of Constantinople (1156), where (to quote Landon in his 'Manual of Councils' [1909]) those who "asserted that the sacrifice upon the Cross [...] were offered to the Father and the Holy Spirit alone, and not also to the Word, the Son of God" were condemned, but Eustathius of Durazzo, who recanted and confessed that it "was offered to the Holy and Undivided Trinity" was, therefore, excluded from the condemnation.<br /><br />(Oh, for a 'searchable' works of Hooker, on-line!: or is it just that I do not yet know how things at internet archive are to be searched?) <br /><br />Semi-HookerianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61230334571044483972010-09-13T23:14:42.446-04:002010-09-13T23:14:42.446-04:00Thank you for highlighting this generous swatch fr...Thank you for highlighting this generous swatch from "A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown", paragraphs 32-40 (according to Ronald Bayne, preached in the first year of Hooker's mastership of the Temple, on 28 March 1586, with Habakuk 1:4 as text).<br /><br />Semi-HookerianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53075855763704801522010-09-13T19:41:20.056-04:002010-09-13T19:41:20.056-04:00Hooker's style makes reading him to be rough g...Hooker's style makes reading him to be rough going. But at certain points he speaks with brilliant clarity:<br /><br />"For are not these our arguments against them: "Christ alone hath satisfied and appeased his Father's wrath; Christ hath merited salvation alone"?<br /><br />The main idea in this selection seems to be that all heresy is Christolpgical heresy at bottom, and the heretics he is addressing are "them," the Roman Church. After allowing that Rome's soteriology is not nearly as bad as some Puritans claimed, Hooker writes:<br /><br />"For, although this be proof sufficient, that they do not deny directly the foundation of faith, yet, if there were no other leaven in the whole lump of their doctrine but this, this were sufficient to prove that their doctrine is not agreeable with the foundation of Christian faith."<br /><br />Hooker seemed almost prescient of shallow modern attempts (such as the so-called "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" to deceive us that Roman and Anglican soteriology are really the same at bottom.<br /><br />Here is the real and genuine "Anglican Patrimony," the Biblical and Patristic Faith, never to be dumped in the fetid waters of the Tiber or the Bosporus.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com