Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[rinnie]

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.

Then tell me how do you pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Why do you say such hatefull things about us because we are listening and doing what Jesus told us to.

Did Jesus or did he not give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Did Jesus or did he not ask PETER to feed his sheep? I do not disagree with you that protestants glorify God to the best of THEIR ability. But the fact still remains that Luther separated brothers and sisters in Christ and we are not all members of the same faith.

In order to be members of the same faith we must all come together. And sure the body has many parts but still only one body. And there is only one body of Christ. There is only one Church. IT is called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church it is written in the Apostles Creed.

And we do believe in the teaching’s of the Saints. If you read the gospel we are all called to be perfect in Christ. And the Saints have proved to us it can be possble to unite yourself with Christ in this world and become like him. And because of the life they have led and the work they have done we do use them as a role model. What is so wrong with that?

Believe it or not we CATHOLICS are Christians also, and we also glorify GOD to the BEST OF OUR ABILITY ALSO.

And why do we as Catholics have to silence ourself? I was asked a question so I responded to it to the best of my ability.

 

[rinnie]

awesome … sounds like my kind-a-guy

Actually I don’t think so. Even though Luther had his faults he and I did have one very important thing in common.

Luther Loved God, Loved Jesus Christ. He believed in One God the Father Almighty to be the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

He never denied Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the World. Luther believed that all things good came from God. Luther believed in the Power of the Holy Spirit, I could go on and on and on.

So while there is alot I disagree with him on. THe main thing that I can say about him he did believe in God and there was no doubt in his mind. He may have questioned some teachings of the Church which I do not agree with him on. But he never questioned the Existance of God.

 

[Bluegoat]

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?

First of all, even now, the Catholic church’s understanding of marriage is more complicated than you are allowing for. Even a little wedding in a city hall can be a real marriage.

Also, the way language is used has changed, and most of these discussions are revolving to some degree around what is understood by certain words. If people understand betrothal as being part of marriage, and treat it as if it is, it doesn’t matter what they call it. We can call marriage a day at the ballpark so long as we understand the meaning of it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, yes, the Church’s understanding of the sacraments has changed over time. And even more so, just how they are practiced and implemented has changed. Does that mean that what God does when a person is baptized or married has changed? No. But there is no way around the Church having made certain kinds of changes - you only need to read a little history to see that it happened.

Furthermore, the Church in no way denies it. You could learn about it in any seminary or pick up a book in a Catholic bookstore.

 

[Third_Day]

=4Squarebaby;5618891] Martin Luther came before the Council of Trent when it was decided that a Priest had to officiate a wedding, thus make a marriage.

Marrige in the Catholic Church did not begin with the Council of Trent.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch wrote in his epistle to St. Polycarp: Chapter V " men and women, when they wed, to marry with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and not after concupiscence”

Clement of Alexandria
“. Marriage is the first conjunction of man and woman for the procreation of legitimate children.(Stromata 2:23 [A.D. 206]).

Tertullian AD 211 The Beauty of Christian Marriage

“How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church arranges, the Sacrifice strengthens, …How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. . They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; Side by side they visit God’s church and partake of God’s Banquet;….

Cyril of Jerusalem
“Let those . . . be of good cheer who are married and use their marriage properly; who enter marriage lawfully and not out of wanton and unbounded license; who recognize periods of continence so that they may give themselves to prayer; who in the assemblies bring clean bodies as well as clean garments into church; who have embarked upon the matrimonial estate for the procreation of children, and not for the sake of indulgence (Catechetical Lectures 4:25 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine
“Among all nations and all men, therefore, the advantage of marriage is for the sake of begetting offspring and in the fidelity of chastity. In the case of the people of God, however, there is also the holiness of the sacrament, on which account a woman is not permitted, even when she leaves with a repudiation, to marry another while her husband yet lives, not even for the sake of bearing children. Although this is the only reason why marriage takes place, even if this for which marriage takes place does not follow, the marriage bond is loosed only by the death of a spouse (On the Good of Marriage 24:32 [A.D. 401]).

The 51st canon of the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III (1198-1216)
" Wherefore, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we strictly forbid clandestine marriages, also forbidding any priest from presuming to participate in them. Therefore, extending generally to all places the custom of some places, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted, they shall be proclaimed publicly in the church by the priests, and that an appropriate time be set within which anyone who wishes to and can may bring forward a lawful impediment. Regardless of whether this happens, the same priests shall investigate whether any impediment exists. When a probable conjecture appears against the joining, let the contract expressly be forbidden until it can clearly be established by documentary evidence what ought to be done about it."

 

[rinnie]

First of all, even now, the Catholic church’s understanding of marriage is more complicated than you are allowing for. Even a little wedding in a city hall can be a real marriage.

Also, the way language is used has changed, and most of these discussions are revolving to some degree around what is understood by certain words. If people understand betrothal as being part of marriage, and treat it as if it is, it doesn’t matter what they call it. We can call marriage a day at the ballpark so long as we understand the meaning of it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, yes, the Church’s understanding of the sacraments has changed over time. And even more so, just how they are practiced and implemented has changed. Does that mean that what God does when a person is baptized or married has changed? No. But there is no way around the Church having made certain kinds of changes - you only need to read a little history to see that it happened.

Furthermore, the Church in no way denies it. You could learn about it in any seminary or pick up a book in a Catholic bookstore.

I am sorry but I disagree with you. Could you show me how the Church has changed its stance on Marriage.

1624 CCC The various liturgies abound in prayers of blessing and epiclesis asking GODS GRACE and BLESSING on the NEW COUPLE. especially the bride. In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as the communion of Love of Christ and the Church, The Holy Spirit is the SEAL of their COVENANT the ever available source of theri love and strength to renew their fidelity.

1657 The consent consists in an HUMAN ACT by which the partners mutally given themselves to eachother. I take you to be my wife— I take you to be my husband. This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two becoming one in flesh.

Could you show me where this has changed?

 

[O.S.Luke]

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?

The sacrament didn’t change - but the way the Church recognized and celebrated it did change - and Trent DID change that (not Protestants). Until Trent, there was no formal nuptial mass. A couple publicly declared their intention to get married, were betrothed, and when they consummated - they were married. No wedding service or mass (unless you were royalty or very rich). No license. No wedding pictures. No clergy present. In those days, a betrothal was much more than what we call an engagement now, and that depended often on local custom and common laws, which varied across Europe. In England, banns had to be published, and that tradition carried on into the Anglican Church until the 19th century.

Before you go on your next polemic, you may need to read up on your own history. Take a lesson from Cardinal Newman about reading history.

It looks like more than just Protestants needs to read church history!

 

[rinnie]

First of all, even now, the Catholic church’s understanding of marriage is more complicated than you are allowing for. Even a little wedding in a city hall can be a real marriage.

Also, the way language is used has changed, and most of these discussions are revolving to some degree around what is understood by certain words. If people understand betrothal as being part of marriage, and treat it as if it is, it doesn’t matter what they call it. We can call marriage a day at the ballpark so long as we understand the meaning of it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, yes, the Church’s understanding of the sacraments has changed over time. And even more so, just how they are practiced and implemented has changed. Does that mean that what God does when a person is baptized or married has changed? No. But there is no way around the Church having made certain kinds of changes - you only need to read a little history to see that it happened.

Furthermore, the Church in no way denies it. You could learn about it in any seminary or pick up a book in a Catholic bookstore.

So are you saying that if a person gets married outside of the CC in city hall, The CC acknowledges that as a Sacramental marriage in the CC?

CCC 1663 SInce marriage establishes the couple in a public state of life in the church. it is fitting that its celebration be public in the Framework of a LITURGICAL CELEBRATION BEFORE A PRIEST OR WITNESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHURCH, the witnesses and the assembly of the faithful.

 

[Third_Day]

=O.S. Luke;5623091]The sacrament didn’t change - but the way the Church recognized and celebrated it did change - and Trent DID change that (not Protestants). Until Trent, there was no formal nuptial mass. A couple publicly declared their intention to get married, were betrothed, and when they consummated - they were married

.

See post 64. How can you say that Trent changed the way marriage was recognized and celebrated by the Church?

 

[rinnie]

If you go back and read the first thread does it or does it not say with the intention of marriage. Yes or No?

 

[O.S.Luke]

.

See post 64. How can you say that Trent changed the way marriage was recognized and celebrated by the Church?

I guess you’ll have to take that up with the Catechism, Catholic historians, and Canon Law. If you disagree with that, I simply don’t know what to tell you. Sorry. What I said is not at variance with what you posted. You can read what Trent did regarding marriage here.

There simply were so many variances in customs - many of them “legal” where Canon Law was concerned - that Trent sought to codify and bring some unity of practice to things. Trent also proscribed times when “marriage solemnities” could not be observed - from Advent to Epiphany, and from Ash Wednesday until the Octave of Easter.

The celebrants at the sacrament of marriage are the couple, not a priest. That is still the case today. Even today, you can have a valid, sacramental marriage without a priest present, if you follow certain guidelines.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Here’s a good timeline that I found:

1215 - Fourth Lateran Council meets, attempted to bring into general legislation the pre-nuptial investigation and the marriage banns, which had up to this time been introduced at local level in a limited number of places.

1545 - A Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses.

1563 - Although by the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament, it wasn’t until 1563 that the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law. It was also this year that the Church banned private marriage and specified coitus and reproduction as requirements for marriage, making the marriage bond practically indissoluble.

 

[Bluegoat]

So are you saying that if a person gets married outside of the CC in city hall, The CC acknowledges that as a Sacramental marriage in the CC?

CCC 1663 SInce marriage establishes the couple in a public state of life in the church. it is fitting that its celebration be public in the Framework of a LITURGICAL CELEBRATION BEFORE A PRIEST OR WITNESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHURCH, the witnesses and the assembly of the faithful.

I believe such a situation is called a valid natural marriage. If such a person wanted an annulment, they would have to go through a tribunal etc to have it declared invalid, and it wouldn’t necessarily decide in their favour. Keep in mind that those people who were married before the Church existed also had valid, real marriages.

The Church was around before the 16th century. And it could be very reasonably argued that marriage is a Sacrament which has particularly undergone a lot of development in understanding.

It might be helpful to think of it this way. A couple can marry themselves, with no Mass or liturgical frou-frou. It involves making a certain kind of vow and commitment to each other. Additionally, Paul tells us that a couple that has had intercourse is married. Clearly, a statement that requires some discretion to apply, but useful in this case.

A couple who is betrothed have made a solemn, legal promise to marry, just like the one required to be married. If they have intercourse as well, they have really just fulfilled all the conditions of marriage. The requirements for the Sacrament are all present.

So although in some ways the couple Luther is talking about have jumped the gun, which is no doubt why he doesn’t approve, it is hardly the same as fornication.

 

[Third_Day]

=O.S. Luke;5623197]Here’s a good timeline that I found:

1215 - Fourth Lateran Council meets, attempted to bring into general legislation the pre-nuptial investigation and the marriage banns, which had up to this time been introduced at local level in a limited number of places.

OK, This is about pre-nuptial investigation, to see if there is anything that would invalidate the marriage. Marriage banns to see if anyone comes forward with any information that would invalidate the upcoming marriage

1545 - A Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses.

Of course. A marriage without a priest would be invalid. This doesn’t mean that before 1545 one did not need a priest.

1563 - Although by the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament, it wasn’t until 1563 that the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

OK. In 1563 the Church wrote it into Canon Law. That does not mean that is was not Church teaching before 1563. It Just means it was not officially stated in Canon Law. Just like purgatory was not officially defined until Trent, but it had always been the teaching of the Church. You are reading into things that are not there.

It was also this year that the Church banned private marriage and specified coitus and reproduction as requirements for marriage, making the marriage bond practically indissoluble.

Not true. Read what I had already posted from the Church Fathers… Reproduction has always been the primary purpose of marriage. What you site only says that the requirements were officialy specified. The Church always had this teaching. The Church has always taught that the marriage bond was indissoluble.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Guyonthestreet, I think Catholics are quite aware of the sins committed by some of our priest, but if I ever heard any of them expressing in their theology or for that matter telling us it is permissible to have sex before marriage when the Bible clearly states otherwise, I’d have to wonder, no?

p.s. Why do you always get so defensive when someone mentions something like this but it’s quite alright for you to mention the immoral acts of priests in the CC on previous threads of which you instigated? I’m seeing a bit of a double standard which I don’t like.

 

[Third_Day]

=Bluegoat;5623270]

It might be helpful to think of it this way. A couple can marry themselves, with no Mass or liturgical frou-frou

What christian religion has ever taught this?

It involves making a certain kind of vow and commitment to each other. Additionally, Paul tells us that a couple that has had intercourse is married.

Where does Paul say that?

A couple who is betrothed have made a solemn, legal promise to marry, just like the one required to be married. If they have intercourse as well, they have really just fulfilled all the conditions of marriage. The requirements for the Sacrament are all present.

You are trying to justify sex outside of marriage. That is all you are doing.

So although in some ways the couple Luther is talking about have jumped the gun, which is no doubt why he doesn’t approve, it is hardly the same as fornication.

Why isn’t it fornification? What if they never get married? Does it then become fornification?

 

[rinnie]

I believe such a situation is called a valid natural marriage. If such a person wanted an annulment, they would have to go through a tribunal etc to have it declared invalid, and it wouldn’t necessarily decide in their favour. Keep in mind that those people who were married before the Church existed also had valid, real marriages.

The Church was around before the 16th century. And it could be very reasonably argued that marriage is a Sacrament which has particularly undergone a lot of development in understanding.

It might be helpful to think of it this way. A couple can marry themselves, with no Mass or liturgical frou-frou. It involves making a certain kind of vow and commitment to each other. Additionally, Paul tells us that a couple that has had intercourse is married. Clearly, a statement that requires some discretion to apply, but useful in this case.

A couple who is betrothed have made a solemn, legal promise to marry, just like the one required to be married. If they have intercourse as well, they have really just fulfilled all the conditions of marriage. The requirements for the Sacrament are all present.

So although in some ways the couple Luther is talking about have jumped the gun, which is no doubt why he doesn’t approve, it is hardly the same as fornication.

But see thats the point. We go by the Teaching of Jesus Christ and the teaching’s of the Church. Jesus appointed Peter and the Apostles to teach us what we need to know. Which you of course realize as RC we still obey those teachings. Peter was the first Pope we have his successor today. We obey the commandments set forth to us by Jesus. He told the Apostles to go forth and preach the word. If people do not listen to shake off the dust and move on. I listen.

 

[Bluegoat]

What christian religion has ever taught this?

Where does Paul say that?

You are trying to justify sex outside of marriage. That is all you are doing.

Why isn’t it fornification? What if they never get married? Does it then become fornification?

Third Day, I’m afraid your understanding of even the current developed theology of marriage according to the Catholic Church is seriously lacking. Several people have pointed out here, for example, that a priest is not a requirement for a valid sacrament. Perhaps you should read a bit more about it before you continue the discussion? Here is a Catholic Encyclopedia entry that covers some aspects of the question.

 

[Bluegoat]

But see thats the point. We go by the Teaching of Jesus Christ and the teaching’s of the Church. Jesus appointed Peter and the Apostles to teach us what we need to know. Which you of course realize as RC we still obey those teachings. Peter was the first Pope we have his successor today. We obey the commandments set forth to us by Jesus. He told the Apostles to go forth and preach the word. If people do not listen to shake off the dust and move on. I listen.

Is seems not to what the Catholic Church has said about the Sacrament of marriage, or what it has said in earlier times.

 

[rinnie]

Is seems not to what the Catholic Church has said about the Sacrament of marriage, or what it has said in earlier times.

Try this on for size

1623 CCC According to the Latin TRADITION the spouses as ministers of Christs grace mutually confer upon each other the Sacrament of Matrimony by expressing THEIR CONSENT BEFORE THE CHURCH. In the TRADITIONS of the Eastern Churchs the pirests are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses but for the VALIDITY of the SACRAMENT their BLESSING is also NECESSARY.

Now did that or did not state according to Traditon. How can that be any earlier than that.

I am sorry if you disagree, but this is not my opinion this was quoted from the CCC. As I have showed you.

 

[rinnie]

Is seems not to what the Catholic Church has said about the Sacrament of marriage, or what it has said in earlier times.

Huh?