The devil behind the surplice: Matthias Flacius and John Hooper on Adiaphora
Between 1548 and 1551, controversies over adiaphora, or indifferent matters, erupted in both Germany and England. Matthias Flacius Illyricus in Germany and John Hooper in England both refused to accept, among other things, the same liturgical vestment: the surplice. While Flacius' objections to...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Imprimé Livre |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Service de livraison Subito: | Commander maintenant. |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Eugene, Oregon
Pickwick Publications
[2018]
|
| Dans: | Année: 2018 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Flacius, Matthias 1520-1575
/ Hooper, John 1500-1555
/ Vêtement liturgique
/ Théologie de controverse
|
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Flacius Illyricus, Matthias
B Flacius Illyricus, Matthias (1520-1575) B England B Réforme protestante B Church vestments B History B Adiaphora B Church vestments History B Réforme protestante (Germany) B Hooper, John B Hooper, John (-1555) B Réforme protestante (England) B Germany |
| Accès en ligne: |
Table des matières Quatrième de couverture Literaturverzeichnis |
| Résumé: | Between 1548 and 1551, controversies over adiaphora, or indifferent matters, erupted in both Germany and England. Matthias Flacius Illyricus in Germany and John Hooper in England both refused to accept, among other things, the same liturgical vestment: the surplice. While Flacius' objections to the imperial liturgical requirements were largely contextual, because the vestments and rites were forced on the church and were part of a recatholicizing agenda, Hooper protested because he was convinced that disputed vestments and rites lacked a biblical basis. The Devil behind the Surplice demonstrates that, while Flacius fought to protect the reformation principle of justification by grace alone through faith alone, Hooper strove to defend the reformation principle that Scripture alone was the source and norm of Christian doctrine and practice. Ultimately, Flacius wanted more Elijahs, prophets to guide a faithful remnant, and Hooper wanted a new Josiah, a young reform king to purify the kingdom and strip it of idolatry Between 1548 and 1551, controversies over adiaphora, or indifferent matters, erupted in both Germany and England. Matthias Flacius Illyricus in Germany and John Hooper in England both refused to accept, among other things, the same liturgical vestment: the surplice. While Flacius' objections to the imperial liturgical requirements were largely contextual, because the vestments and rites were forced on the church and were part of a recatholicizing agenda, Hooper protested because he was convinced that disputed vestments and rites lacked a biblical basis. The Devil behind the Surplice demonstrates that, while Flacius fought to protect the reformation principle of justification by grace alone through faith alone, Hooper strove to defend the reformation principle that Scripture alone was the source and norm of Christian doctrine and practice. Ultimately, Flacius wanted more Elijahs, prophets to guide a faithful remnant, and Hooper wanted a new Josiah, a young reform king to purify the kingdom and strip it of idolatry Part I. Matthias Flaciuis and the Adiaphoristic Controversy : -- 1. The path to the adiaphoristic controversy -- 2. Flacius' case against the Interims -- 3. Concluding thoughts on Part One -- Part II. John Hooper and the Vestment Controversy : -- 4. The path to the vestment controversy -- 5. Hooper's case against the vestments -- 6. Conclusion: comparisons and contrasts |
|---|---|
| Description: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 171-178 |
| ISBN: | 1532617720 |