If Martin Luther Was Wrong...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathdefender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Verisimilitude said:
This makes me wonder then how the civil authority as well as the common society within Christendom back in the day of Luther considered marriages.

Today our government prescribes tax breaks for married couples but not single people or those just living together, and there are restrictions on medical information like HIPPA rules apply to legal spouses only. Businesses like insurance companies make coverage/claim payments and programs like Social Security only recognize a legally married couple when spousal benefits are requested. Other than the social acceptance of men in women being able to live together as a couple when a more puritanical and moral minded society existed; what benefit(s) did such a civil union serve then that are different from today?

Today a person can call themselves a preacher of some religion they applied through the mail for and marry people that seemingly is accepted by the civil authority without much question as long as it is blessed by the state for reasons of taxes and business. When did the paradigm shift happen that made religious marriage less important then the civil marriage?
Click to expand...
Civil authorities have several vested interests in marriage. Taxes being one. Inheritance being another. Most of the laws concerning marriage have ot do with giving rights to women and children, the two groups that historically have no voice.

Years ago, a marraige was performed by public decree for most people. You and your betrothed would stand in the square and announce your intentions. At some point, you would want your marriage blessed by the Church, but as far as the state went, you were married. There were issues of the legality of this, after all, you could claim that you never made the proclamation. Once laws were written concerning inheritance and divorce, you needed some government decree of marriage. At that time, secular authorities, such as judges and ship captains could marry. They did not replace or become more popular than church weddings, but they became an option.

In some places, a Church wedding is not recognized at all. A civil ceremony is required for the state.

Even if I am wrong about Luther, people need to understand that Luther was not a lone voice in the wilderness. There were other people who went along with him for various reasons. It is not unlikely that another former RC priest married him.
 
Cathdefender said:
A friend wanted an answer to this question. Since Luther was a heretic, and married a Catholic nun, who married them? Was it a Catholic priest? (doubt it) or who was it?
I really never thought about it until he brought it up. Thanks.
Click to expand...
this is common sense to me. if luther abandon the catholic church and condenms her, do you really believe that he would go back and get married by the CC?
besides luther was excommunicated by the CC. i dont believe the CC would marry him either.

he probably was married by some pastor made by his rebellious religion at the time. or who knows maybe calvin married him. oh well who cares.
 
It was my understanding that no priest is required for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to be conferred; the couple gives the sacrament to each other.
 
I thought it was a good question in more ways than one and I do not see why some are offensed at the question.
 
Insomniac said:
It was my understanding that no priest is required for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to be conferred; the couple gives the sacrament to each other.
Click to expand...
This is more like scripture.
Blessings be upon you
 
Steven_John said:
You have quoted sent?
Does God work his will through you?
Click to expand...
Luther never had the authority and was never sent.

Jesus told the Apostles to spread the Gospels and they chose bishops “everywhere they went” to continue it.
 
jay29 said:
So God turned His back on His own Church? I will never believe that!
Click to expand...
Look this guy has a different opinion than you, he is not being blind, go argue with him.
The only good he did was purge the Church of heretics and lukewarm Catholics.
Click to expand...
God is not real simple, He brings His blessings from all situations even ours.

We need to be open to grow awareness, one of my biggest battles

Peace and blessings
 
For the record, Luther was opposed to the selling of indugencies that was NEVER TAUGHT by the Church. The “straw that broke the camel’s back” was never an issue for the Church as a whole or the doctrine of the Church. Now, his issue with other Church dogma is another story.

Did the Church need reform? Yes. Anything made of humans needs reform at all times. Did Luther have a legitimate complaint about an abuse in his area? Yes. Did Luther have the right to leave the Church? No more than the foot can leave the body if it is mad at the hand.

Also, the man and womon confer the sacrement of matrimony upon each other. The priest (or deacon) is there as the Church’s cheif witness and to bless the union.
 
Well, i may be wrong but to me, Martin Luther is synonymous with Lucifer.

Not his name, but by his actions, Lucifer (satan) was once one of Gods creation who went against the teachings and widom of God and is the cause for almost 1/3 of non-believers in the world, and many more sinners.

Luther on the other hand was once a Catholic who went against the teachings and wisdom of the Church and is now the cause of almost 1/3 of Christians who are non-Catholics.
 
ralphinal said:
For the record, Luther was opposed to the selling of indugencies that was NEVER TAUGHT by the Church. The “straw that broke the camel’s back” was never an issue for the Church as a whole or the doctrine of the Church. Now, his issue with other Church dogma is another story.

Did the Church need reform? Yes. Anything made of humans needs reform at all times. Did Luther have a legitimate complaint about an abuse in his area? Yes. Did Luther have the right to leave the Church? No more than the foot can leave the body if it is mad at the hand.

Also, the man and womon confer the sacrement of matrimony upon each other. The priest (or deacon) is there as the Church’s cheif witness and to bless the union.
Click to expand...
Your post was ex, but i thought Luther was kicked out not chose to leave?
Sinning hands can be used to cut feet off when the foot offers truth.
 
Steven_John said:
Your post was ex, but i thought Luther was kicked out not chose to leave?
Sinning hands can be used to cut feet off when the foot offers truth.
Click to expand...
Luther left before he was formally kicked out. Even then, had ne recanted on most of is issues, he would have been welcomed back into the Church. He was given every chance to do so. There is no such thing as a permanant excommunication: if the person repents and makes amends, they are let back into the Church.

Nothing that Luther taught was the truth. Nothing. He saw an abuse that was limited in scope and geography and used it as a launching point for multiple heresies. Had he truly been interested in reforming the Church, he would have stuck to the one issue and not tried to destroy the Catholic Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top