Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[raumzeitmc2]

What you are looking for doesn’t exist. Scripture always has to be applied to a particular context. Additionally, Luther didn’t say it was, he said it was not fornication.

Double-talk! It most certainly *is *fornication, and deep down I think you know it!

Absolutely not! His word does not change according to what a society thinks, and it doesn’t change because Martin Luther says it does.

1 corinthians 7:9

Exactly! Amen!!

Wow, it is statements like these that make people think Catholics are fools. It is too bad, since overall it isn’t true.

Funny, even Luther recognized the immoral effect of his teachings – but apparently wasn’t overly concerned!

One thing I entreat you by the bowels of Christ (per viscera Christi), not readily to believe those who calumniate me. In regard to what you inform me, — that MY DOCTRINES ARE THE DELIGHT OF DEBAUCHEES, and that MANY SCANDALOUS PRACTICES have been the consequence of my recent publications, I am neither afraid of such censorious representations nor surprised to hear of them.

Luther to Johann von Staupitz, June 27, 1522.

books.google.com/books?id=dEgI7lL3UhUC&pg=PA692&dq=%22my+doctrines+are+the+delight+of+debauchees%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&client=firefox#v=onepage&q=%22my%20doctrines%20are%20the%20delight%20of%20debauchees%22&f=false

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Wow, it is statements like these that make people think Catholics are fools. It is too bad, since overall it isn’t true.

One of the lessons I learned from here, albeit a bit too slowly, was certain people on here are very poor examples of a lived out catholic faith. If one looked only to them, one would never come near the catholic church.

But as you note, thankfully it’s not true of all catholics on this site, nor in real life, and many make an extrodinary effort to be charitable to other faiths and are fantastically knowledgable in their own faith, helping and encouraging others to read and understand true catholicism.

I have been helped enormously here by some catholics, without whom I’d have jacked this site in long time ago.

Equally it has to be said those of other faiths have been just as charitable and eurdite in their dialogue and they are worthy examples of their lived out faith.

My advice would be to remember this is the internet, and as such draws a lot of armchair warriers, no different to any other site. These people would be eaten alive by an apologist of any faith, but on here, they get to make all sorts of rabid statements and feel they will get away with it because they claim to be catholic and this is a catholic site.

I have a theory about some posters here, one in particular, due to their conduct.

Strangely enough it was their constant running down of other faiths coupled with their complete lack of knowledge of their own claimed catholic faith that made me suspicious.

Imagine if you will, you are totally anti-catholic. Now you know if you come onto a catholic site and start spouting off, you’ll get banned, and your mission, to drive people away from the catholic church, will fail. So what to do - well, obvious really, infiltrate the site, declare your catholic creditentials, boast triumphally about your faith, that you are right, everyone else is ignorant, wrong and going to hell, be as arrogant and prideful and insulting as you possibly can to every non catholic and some catholics alike and kaboom - you succeed in driving away potential converts while at the same time being held in the bosom of the site you totally despise.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Of course it was permitted; and is validated in song of Solomon, amongst other passages.

Where exactly is it validated?

Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon:

The church only changed it so they would be called to officiate at every marriage,

No, St Paul said it in the bible.

it expands power and money.

Oh no, the evil catholic church trying to take over the world!

 

[4Squarebaby]

Assuming that Joseph never comsumated his relationship with Mary in scripture where is it said how one moved from “bethrothed” to “married”. What Priest or Rabbi said what? What public ceremony to distinguish from the private ceremony was written.

Was there a pre-party with immediate family and close friends a ceremony then an after-party with the entire community? Can I find this written or is it just traditions which got mixed with other local traditions before the late 1500s?

 

[nordskoven]

In Luther’s marriage sermon, he said it was permissible to have sexual relations with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s own wife wasn’t willing. And Luther blessed the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, advising him to cover up the union with a “good, strong lie.” Pray for priests in this Year of the Priest so we may have no more Luthers to degrade the Way, Truth and Life they vow to uphold, and thank God for our great, humble priests.

fairlds.org/Bible/Will_the_Real_Martin_Luther_Please_Stand_Up.html

 

[Publisher]

Assuming that Joseph never comsumated his relationship with Mary in scripture where is it said how one moved from “bethrothed” to “married”. What Priest or Rabbi said what? What public ceremony to distinguish from the private ceremony was written.

Was there a pre-party with immediate family and close friends a ceremony then an after-party with the entire community? Can I find this written or is it just traditions which got mixed with other local traditions before the late 1500s?

Bethrothal was indeed the beginning of 'official marriage". It was marriage once the couple slept together or spent the night together as husband and wife.

Looking back to the story of Ruth and Boaz gives us a clue as to how binding such relationships truly were. Ruth sought Boaz out on the threshing floor and spent the night with him…they were then married.

Joseph and Mary moved from the state of “betrothal” to “married” by living together…being together.

Part of the problem appears to be that “betrothal” is seen as simply an “engagement” instead of the first step of entering into marriage. Typically a bethrothed couple were married when the groom arrived at the brides house to bring her to his…usually a year after the betrothal…sometimes less…but to end a bethrothal was tantamount to an act of divorce.

Marriage occurs in our day and age when the couple gets a license and has it signed by an officiant. They are legally married once the license is recorded with the county clerk.

The “rites” of marriage bear little resemblance to first century customs and norms…nor 17th century customs and norms. Even today in some states if a couple register into a motel as husband and wife…they are legally and lawfully married…in some states if a couple lives together for a certain amount of time…they are legally and lawfully married as they have been living together as such.

I realize we wish to impose our modern and religious understandings upon marriage customs and ideas of bygone eras…but our understanding of those days will always be lacking if we do so…the acts of bethrothal and marriage of such times are not the modern Western equal of "engagement’ and “marriage.”

 

[Guyonthestreet]

In Luther’s marriage sermon, he said it was permissible to have sexual relations with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s own wife wasn’t willing. And Luther blessed the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, advising him to cover up the union with a “good, strong lie.” Pray for priests in this Year of the Priest so we may have no more Luthers to degrade the Way, Truth and Life they vow to uphold, and thank God for our great, humble priests.

fairlds.org/Bible/Will_the_Real_Martin_Luther_Please_Stand_Up.html

Oh he had his sins all right - in the year of the priest lets also pray Jesus sends strong shepherds to all churchs, men and women with a genuine calling to serve his people and do his will.

One doesnt have to look very far in the catholic priesthood to find examples far worse than Luther - priests with mistresses and children all covered up by the church, abuse of children, the whole nine yards. Seems to me in the area of morality, catholics looking at their own papacy and priesthood have few stones to throw at others.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

In Luther’s marriage sermon, he said it was permissible to have sexual relations with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s own wife wasn’t willing. And Luther blessed the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, advising him to cover up the union with a “good, strong lie.”
fairlds.org/Bible/Will_the_Real_Martin_Luther_Please_Stand_Up.html

Yes, those are simply the facts of history.

But you know, I have no problem admitting that Luther did have his good and praiseworthy qualities. But my heavens, certain of his teachings and behavior were, quite frankly, just plain immoral and unscriptural, and it’s high-time Protestants stop trying to justify his immorality or calling him a “reformer.” What did he “reform?”

Now there’s no reason the moral behavior of the Reformers shouldn’t be discussed (aside from the fact that some Protestants cannot bear to hear it). Nor is there any wrong in pointing out the undisputed historical facts of their immorality. I hope our Protestant friends will come to understand this.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

One doesnt have to look very far in the catholic priesthood to find examples far worse than Luther - priests with mistresses and children all covered up by the church, abuse of children, the whole nine yards. Seems to me in the area of morality, catholics looking at their own papacy and priesthood have few stones to throw at others.

No one is throwing stones. This is simply a discussion of some historical facts.

And no, the “Church” is not covering for bad churchmen. The most that can be said is that some members in Church have done such a wicked thing. But the Church herself always laments and decries the sins of her children. And I can assure she does not honor such sinful individuals with the title of “Reformer” as certain other churches have done!

But let us now listen to Fr. Denifle as he demonstrates how Protestants seek to defend the indefensible!

But such are the tactics of Luther’s adherents. If their “Reformer” writes something that brings the blush of shame to their cheeks, they foist the responsibility of it either upon the Church or upon the past; or they twist and dread Luther’s words around until finally they get some sort or rational meaning out of them.

Now, however, I hereby openly challenge [Theodore] Kolde to prove that the “confessional counsel” given by Luther and his associates to the Landgrave, their sanction of polygamy, “is based on the medieval view of the nature of marriage,” and is an inheritance from Catholicism,” which lacked a comprehensive insight into the true more nature of matrimony.

After more fundamental, unbiased study, Kolde will perceive that the “medieval view” was not uniform, indeed, as to whether and how far polygamy was contrary to natural law, but that it was uniform in this, that the sacrament of matrimony of the New Testament wholly excludes polygamy.

Luther’s confessional counsel is absolutely his own creation, a sequel to his unblushing and wanton undertaking to rob marriage of its sacramental character.

It was accordingly given out that now and then a second wife was even for Christians a wholesome medicine, a sacred remedy against whorishness.

Luther and Lutherdom, Heinrich Denifle, 1917, 2009, vol. 1, pt. 1, ISBN 1112168176 ISBN 978-1112168178, p. 302.

amazon.com/gp/product/1112168176/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0008A6Q7S&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TA9YY6AM1NYDSMZBTJ9

 

[rinnie]

Define the difference between engagement and marriage.

Edwin

To be engaged is to have someone ask you to marry them and have them accept.

To be married is a sacrament. A outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. To be married is when you go before God and promise in front of him and another witness to be true to that partner till death do you part.

To be engaged in the CC is not a sacrament. To be married is. When you are engaged to someone you did not stand before God and promise to be with that person until you die. To be engaged you can change your mind. You can be engaged many times in the Catholic Church. Married once unless an annulment takes place. You do not need an annulment for a broken engagement.

 

[leopolis1]

I’m not surprised at all. That’s what Protestants are for - to disobey the pope and to do as they wish. Luther was a very good Protestant.

 

[mark_a]

This thread reminds me of an explanation of Mary’s perpetual virginity I heard or read somewhere. The explanation was that “betrothed” would have normally meant “consumated” even though a wedding ritual had not yet taken place or was never intended.

26 10 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin

betrothed

to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” 12

35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Obvious from the text, Mary had taken a vow of virginity (as alluded to in the Book of Numbers, I believe) and had no intention of consumating her “betrothal”.

 

[O.S.Luke]

For a bunch of Catholics, some of y’all don’t seem to have read much Christian history, esp. the Council of Trent. [sigh]

This has got to be one of the more screwier threads on here. What’s the point?

 

[O.S.Luke]

To be engaged is to have someone ask you to marry them and have them accept.

To be married is a sacrament. A outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. To be married is when you go before God and promise in front of him and another witness to be true to that partner till death do you part.

To be engaged in the CC is not a sacrament. To be married is. When you are engaged to someone you did not stand before God and promise to be with that person until you die. To be engaged you can change your mind. You can be engaged many times in the Catholic Church. Married once unless an annulment takes place. You do not need an annulment for a broken engagement.

That is now. The context of this discussion is pre-Trent.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

That is now. The context of this discussion is pre-Trent.

Pre-Trent, post-Trent, it doesn’t matter. The fact is, the Church has always held marriage to be a sacred institution, and a sacrament which confers grace. The reformers, with *absolutely no authority *to do so, denied this.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Luther permitted and justified premarital sex for engaged couples.

awesome … sounds like my kind-a-guy

 

[TristanCross]

This is funny and sad. Catholic, silence yourselves. Your nonCatholic Christian brethren do not worship Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon or any other reformer or major Protestant theologian. Protestants, silence yourself. Your Catholic brethren do not worship Mary, saints, or images.

Catholics, Protestants do not go by every single word the reformers said. They aren’t like you, who take the words of popes and saints as true. Protestants, glorify God to the best of your ability. You are Christians. Catholics, I urge you to do the same.

In th body of Christ, there is no Jew, nor Greek. Nor is their Catholic or Protestant. We are all members. Rid yourselves of pride, arrogance, and hate. Do not say, “Only my people are in Christ’s Body”. Do you not know that Body has many parts? Not ever man is a arm, leg, or chest. God bless you all and may you all be uinited in Christ.

 

[Tezza]

This thread reminds me of an explanation of Mary’s perpetual virginity I heard or read somewhere. The explanation was that “betrothed” would have normally meant “consumated” even though a wedding ritual had not yet taken place or was never intended. Obvious from the text, Mary had taken a vow of virginity (as alluded to in the Book of Numbers, I believe) and had no intention of consumating her “betrothal”.

Interesting.

 

[Tezza]

It’s too bad we can’t recognize the validity of the others’ explanations here. It would seem logical that societal norms in regard to marriage centuries before our time would be an important tidbit of information in reviewing Luther’s words. It also seems a possibility that Luther might have been making concessions for himself in his struggles with some, ahem, questionable behavior. Who knows?

From the poster who pointed out that protestants don’t worship Luther…Amen! I would say modern day Lutherans would be hard pressed to know all the beliefs to which Luther held fast (especially the Catholic ones ) And thank you for pointing out that Catholics don’t worship Mary. Of course, there are a heck of a lot of Catholics who know about as much about Catholicism as Lutherans know about Luther

Just my 2 cents.

Peace everyone!
Teri

 

[rinnie]

That is now. The context of this discussion is pre-Trent.

Oh, So a sacrament has changed. In the RCC nothing has changed. The teaching of a sacrament is the same today as the day Jesus taught it. the teaching of our faith is the same today as when Jesus taught it. Who Changed it?