The sensus fidelium is not and has never been a roll call vote of people who consider themselves Catholic. It is About the quality of the witness, not the quantity of voices.
For example, the witness of John Fisher and Thomas More has drown out any number of voices arguing for a different understanding of marriage and divorce.
The sensus fidelium is not and has never been a roll call vote of people who consider themselves Catholic. It is About the quality of the witness, not the quantity of voices.
For example, the witness of John Fisher and Thomas More has drown out any number of voices arguing for a different understanding of marriage and divorce.
More never said why he refused the oath, which wasn't just about divorce and remarriage but also about Papal versus royal authority. Given that his textual polish was the final step in Henry's tract against Luther and that he wrote at the time that he had learned a great deal about the importance of papal authority in reading Henry's work, it seems more likely to me that he refused to sign over the issue of the center of authority than over marriage. After all, both Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. and Martin Luther argued that biblically rulers could have multiple wives for the good of the state.
Not totally unfair. But in his “Response to Luther,” More derides Luther for his take on polygamy. And I would argue that Henry didn’t want multiple wives, he wanted an annulment and a marriage. So was it about Papal authority? Sure. The Pope’s authority to annul a marriage.
I am reminded of the indescribably horrible siege of Munster in the 16th century. John of Leiden, the leader of the besieged garrison, declared polygamy all round and took sixteen wives for himself. Once the Catholic bishop regained his city, he was definitely was definitely not keen on mercy for John.
Neither Cajetan nor Luther supported polygamy all round. They supported it for kings because in Scripture most of the kings of Israel, including David, had many wives. This allowed them to cement alliances with marriage and guarantee a successor. So they supported it for kings only.
I can see the sense in supporting polygamy only for kings. Henry VIII practised serial polygamy in his search for a male heir. And Marie Antoinette was married to the Dauphin to cement a French-Austrian alliance. A Catholic monarch seeking friendly relations with a neighbouring country could contract only one such marriage.
John of Leiden was a very different case, being the sort of guy who gave religious loonies a bad name. No wonder that both Lutheran and Catholic rulers clamped down on Anabaptists.
The sensus fidelium is not and has never been a roll call vote of people who consider themselves Catholic. It is About the quality of the witness, not the quantity of voices.
For example, the witness of John Fisher and Thomas More has drown out any number of voices arguing for a different understanding of marriage and divorce.
More never said why he refused the oath, which wasn't just about divorce and remarriage but also about Papal versus royal authority. Given that his textual polish was the final step in Henry's tract against Luther and that he wrote at the time that he had learned a great deal about the importance of papal authority in reading Henry's work, it seems more likely to me that he refused to sign over the issue of the center of authority than over marriage. After all, both Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. and Martin Luther argued that biblically rulers could have multiple wives for the good of the state.
Not totally unfair. But in his “Response to Luther,” More derides Luther for his take on polygamy. And I would argue that Henry didn’t want multiple wives, he wanted an annulment and a marriage. So was it about Papal authority? Sure. The Pope’s authority to annul a marriage.
I am reminded of the indescribably horrible siege of Munster in the 16th century. John of Leiden, the leader of the besieged garrison, declared polygamy all round and took sixteen wives for himself. Once the Catholic bishop regained his city, he was definitely was definitely not keen on mercy for John.
Neither Cajetan nor Luther supported polygamy all round. They supported it for kings because in Scripture most of the kings of Israel, including David, had many wives. This allowed them to cement alliances with marriage and guarantee a successor. So they supported it for kings only.
I can see the sense in supporting polygamy only for kings. Henry VIII practised serial polygamy in his search for a male heir. And Marie Antoinette was married to the Dauphin to cement a French-Austrian alliance. A Catholic monarch seeking friendly relations with a neighbouring country could contract only one such marriage.
John of Leiden was a very different case, being the sort of guy who gave religious loonies a bad name. No wonder that both Lutheran and Catholic rulers clamped down on Anabaptists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion