Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[Bluegoat]

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.

Tradition, like doctrine, has developed.

You are quite right though that in the Eastern Church the theology of the sacrament of marriage does require a priest in a way the Western understanding does not. I have no idea about the historical development of that in the East. But it doesn’t pertain to Luther’s situation.

 

[rinnie]

Tradition, like doctrine, has developed.

You are quite right though that in the Eastern Church the theology of the sacrament of marriage does require a priest in a way the Western understanding does not. I have no idea about the historical development of that in the East. But it doesn’t pertain to Luther’s situation.

Thank-you bluegoat. I love when we can disagree on our faiths, but can at least agree on what eachother faith teaches. It shows me there is hope for all of us to someday all become one again in Christ. Lets all keep praying!

 

[mark_a]

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.

Ahhh. . . the good ol’ days!

Gimme that ol’ time religion!!!

 

[yankee_doodle]

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?

well, it has changed a little. I was listening to a radio show earlier today explain how the CC persecuted owners of the Tyndale bible in England (and eventually murdered Tyndale himself). So the church has changed for the better (it no longer murders men who merely print and publish books, or murders people for merely owning a book … much less the bible).

 

[rinnie]

well, it has changed a little. I was listening to a radio show earlier today explain how the CC persecuted owners of the Tyndale bible in England (and eventually murdered Tyndale himself). So the church has changed for the better (it no longer murders men who merely print and publish books, or murders people for merely owning a book … much less the bible).

You know what yankee fight with yourself. I won’t even dignify that with a answer. You have been on this site enough and had it explained to you. ANd what good does it matter anyway. You reject God. The only time you appear is when you can try to persecute the Church. Well I will be no part of it or you any longer.

I will shake the sand and move on. SO please just put me on your ignore list. That would be the best thing. And I will do the same. Its better that way.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

On the other hand, any guests for a wedding meal were often present for the consummation portion. I think it’s better the way it is now.

 

[Third_Day]

=Bluegoat;5623845]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

.
Are you sure?

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.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article that you sited:

"The acceptance of the sacraments administered in the Church had been prescribed in general in the following words: “And we by no means reject the sacraments which are administered in it (the Roman Catholic Church), with the co-operation of the inestimable and invisible power of the Holy Ghost, even though they be administered by a sinful priest, provided the Church recognizes him”,

It does not say that a priest is not necessary.

continue"
"St. Ambrose. In his letter to Siricius (Ep. xlii, 3, in P.L., XVI, 1124), he states: “We also do not deny that marriage was sanctified by Christ”; and to Vigilius he writes (Ep. xix, 7, in P.L., XVI, 984): "Since the contracting of marriage must be sanctified by the veiling and the blessing of the priest, how can there be any mention of a marriage, when unity of faith is wanting”

Again the marriage must be blessed by the priest who is blessing the marriage in the name of the Church. It does not say a priest is not necesary as you claim
continue:

III. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT; MATTER AND FORM
Although the Church realized from the first the complete sacramentality of Christian marriage, yet for a time there was some uncertainty as to what in the marriage contract is the real essence of the sacrament; as to its matter and form, and its minister. From the earliest times this fundamental proposition has been upheld: Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church, for otherwise it would be a source not of Divine grace, but of malediction
And as the sacraments effect what they signify, it is clear that the persons contracting marriage receive through this sacrament the grace by which they participate in the union of Christ and the Church." Hence the whole essence and grace-producing power of marriage consists, according to St. Thomas, in the union of man and woman (in presence of the priest), not in the additional blessing of the priest prescribed by the Church

I have yet to find where it says that a priest is not necessary.

Catechism:
1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.

What you fail to understand is that the marriage must be blessed by the Church for a sacramental marriage to be valid. Only a priest or a consecrated deacon can give a valid blessing. I fail to see how you can claim that two people can marry themselves without a priest and the marriage is valid.

 

[O.S.Luke]

On the other hand, any guests for a wedding meal were often present for the consummation portion. I think it’s better the way it is now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Luther permitted and justified premarital sex for engaged couples. These are his words.

What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 3 volumes, (1994, 3 vols. in 1), ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

Primary Sources:

(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).

W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883 ff.).
E = Erlangen Ed. Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke (Erlangen: Heyder, 1826-1857)
SL = Saint Louis Ed. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, (25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

Who agrees with this?

Catholicism permitted “handfasting”. Bishop David Beaton entered into a union in this way - in 16th century Catholic Scotland, it was not a moral problem. Luther was saying nothing a Catholic bishop might not have said. How dreadful - Luther is thinking like a Catholic bishop of his own time ! It looks wrong only by our later standards. Many sorts of union are not wrong, unless or until a Church decides otherwise. It used to be sinful to marry within seven degrees of affinity - this was changed because the practical effect in small communities was to make marriage outside the forbidden degrees impossible. A third point: in 1502, the Pope gave a member of the Portuguese Royal family permission to marry the widow of his deceased brother; not longer after, the Prince of Wales married the widow of his deceased brother. The rest, as they say, is history ​

The theological importance of the Papal decision of 1502 was very great - for the Pope’s action showed in practice that Divine Law (in this case, as expressed in a law in Leviticus) could legitimately be set aside by a Pope. That the Pope had decided a vexed issue much debated by canonists & theologians to this effect also settled the question of whether this law about this degree of affinity could be set aside at all. The decision helped to settle just how extensive legitimate Papal action could be.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are so right about this. I really wish we, as Christians, would stop focusing on what seperates us and instead embrace what makes us similar.

 

[yankee_doodle]

awwww … but scratch that (too darn boring)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, it was quite a scandal if someone went back on a betrothal, in the middle ages, it was possible to take legal action.

The premise of the operetta “Trial by Jury”, performed in 1875, is that​

“breach of promise of marriage”

was a crime: which at that date it was in English law. Promise of Marriage, OTOH, was not remotely illegal, but usual and unobjectionable.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

This comes from our Catholic point of view. Luther and the reformers, however, didn’t view marriage as a sacrament. From Luther’s point of view, marriage didn’t meet the criteria for being a sacrament. Marriage existed prior to Christ so He didn’t institute it. Secondly, marriage has no outward sign like in the case of the Eucharist or baptism, and he didn’t believe it conveyed grace per se. It builds up a couple as Christians but it doesn’t directly convey graces. The original Lutheran vantage point is quite different from ours.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Just a note (should’ve included this info in my initial post):

From appendix B of What Luther Says, p. 1616:

1. Von Ehesachen (Concerning Matrimonial Matters). Luther published this rather comprehensive study of an area in which there were many vexing problems at the repeated request of clergymen, magistrates, and members of the nobility. The emphasis lies particularly on the ethics of betrothal and the problems of divorce. The work still deserves the careful study which the Doctor’s contemporaries gave it.

Also, I should have included the editor’s note which preceded Luther’s comments (No. 2796) on premarital sex.

To avoid offense, the betrothed should not yet live together as married people. But any premature sexual intimacy between them, although reprehensible, should not be called fornication.

What Luther Says, p. 896.

The Luther quote I originally posted follows immediately:

1. What about the Intercourse of the Betrothed?

Secret intercourse of those who are engaged to each other can certainly not be considered fornication; for it takes place in the name and with the intention of marriage, a desire, intention, or name which fornication does not have. Thus there is a great difference indeed between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage.

• Von Ehesachen. Published in 1530.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

A correction:

The quote posted above,

To avoid offense, the betrothed should not yet live together as married people. But any premature sexual intimacy between them, although reprehensible, should not be called fornication.

Should actually read:

To avoid offense, the betrothed should not yet live as married people. But any premature sexual intimacy between them, although reprehensible, should not be called fornication.

Editor’s note in What Luther Says, p. 896.

Also, I found this:

LXIX. The Reader who has intercourse with his betrothed before marriage, shall be allowed to read after a year’s suspension, remaining without advancement. If he has had secret intercourse without betrothal, he shall be deposed from his ministry. So too the minister.

St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 217

 

[olds442]

So Much of what Luther said is taken out of context. He proved his point by makeing statements that got people attention. Luther was sent by God to clean up the coruption in the Catholic church

 

[Bluegoat]

So Much of what Luther said is taken out of context. He proved his point by makeing statements that got people attention. Luther was sent by God to clean up the coruption in the Catholic church

I think that your first statement is a good point. As both an orator and writer Luther did tend to make controversial statements in order to grab peoples attention and get them invested in what he was saying, and then go on to explain/expound on them. It can be a very effective technique.

I’m not sure that is what he was doing in this case though.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Some Protestants are notorious for taking Scripture out of context to make it suit one’s point and needs. It seems that the writings of the Reformers can be equally taken out of context by some Catholics.

Context, context, context.

 

[TristanCross]

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.

I’m appalled by your message.

This is hate speech? Not at all. If you think so, I will pray for you, for the real world will be a great surprise to you. If I was speaking in hate, I’d be a hypocrite by saying, “Rid yourselves of…hate.” The intention was good, you interpreted it as bad.

The message, if you didn’t notice, was directed to everyone in general. I’m sorry if you didn’t realize that. I thought I made myself perfectly clear.

I don’t follow Luther. Sorry. So if he says something I don’t like, I just look past it. What can I do? He’s dead. I’m alive. There’s a Catholic website that has made “prophesies” and predictions of the future (like those childish websites, such as satansrapture) who have lied many times and who’s predictions didn’t come true. That doesn’t mean I believe all Catholics believed this and that they were all at fault. It was the individual. Because Martin Luther says something, Catholics immediately seem to jump to the conclusion that this destroys all of Protestantism, like a domino effect. Fact is, we don’t follow Luther. We follow Christ.

Peter was given the keys, as was the whole Christian Church. Peter was the first to receive these “keys” because he would be the first to preach the Gospel of Christ (Acts 2).

What or who do you have faith in? Mine is in Christ.

You, again, fail to see the obvious. It’s sad how proud Catholics are. Pride is a great offense to God. There is one Church: The Holy Christian Church. I’m in it. Maybe you are. Protestants and Catholics are in it. Mormons declare to be the one true church. So do Jehovah’s Witnesses. So do Seventh Day Adventists. So do many others. A great way to signify and identify a cult is to see if it says just that. “We are the only true church.” Really? I believe Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him…not the Catholic Church. The arm of the Lord is never too short. Perhaps we can also say that my brothers in Asia who are being persecuted, killed, hated, etc. are doing Satan’s work, despite preaching Christ? One man had boiling water poured down his throat for having a Bible in his possession. Indeed, all of us non-Catholics are damned despite dying and giving all for Him, right? All of us non-Catholic Christians are lost…

Do you not realize that the Church is Christian? And are Protestants not Christians? Peter called the Church Christian. If the Church is Christian, and I’m Christian, but not Catholic, I’m lost? Hmm…

Again, my arm is different from my leg. My stomach different from my toes. This is the same with the Body of Christ. Lutherans and Catholics are much different, but are a part of the same Body. It seems to me that Catholic want all the glory for themselves. This is incredibly sad and selfish, to say the least.

I’m a Saint. All believers are Saints. I believe in the teachings of the early Saints who wrote the Bible. There’s nothing more that I want, besides glorifying God, than becoming more like Christ. I personally like Jesus Christ as my role model. He’s sinless, God, Savior, Lord, etc. There are some great Saints. But at the end of the day, they fall short; like everyone else. Nothing wrong with reading or following the works of Saints. Compare what they say to Scripture, though.

Yes, there are many Catholics who are Christians. Did I never say this? You are confusing me, because I never said you weren’t…Getting a little defensive over things I didn’t say?..

I also told the Protestants to silence themselves. Why did you only say “Why do we as Catholics have to silence ourself?” Why didn’t you include your Protestant brethren. I was defending both sides. Or did you miss the part where I said, “Protestants, silence yourself. Your Catholic brethren do not worship Mary, saints, or images.” Are you saying Catholics can be open but Protestants should be silent? You seem to be omitting and excluding all things I said to Protestants as well. Like I’m speaking one-sided…

May I suggest you calm yourself a little bit? You seem tense. God bless you with His greatest Grace, Mercy, and Love.

 

[rinnie]

I’m appalled by your message.

This is hate speech? Not at all. If you think so, I will pray for you, for the real world will be a great surprise to you. If I was speaking in hate, I’d be a hypocrite by saying, “Rid yourselves of…hate.” The intention was good, you interpreted it as bad.

The message, if you didn’t notice, was directed to everyone in general. I’m sorry if you didn’t realize that. I thought I made myself perfectly clear.

I don’t follow Luther. Sorry. So if he says something I don’t like, I just look past it. What can I do? He’s dead. I’m alive. There’s a Catholic website that has made “prophesies” and predictions of the future (like those childish websites, such as satansrapture) who have lied many times and who’s predictions didn’t come true. That doesn’t mean I believe all Catholics believed this and that they were all at fault. It was the individual. Because Martin Luther says something, Catholics immediately seem to jump to the conclusion that this destroys all of Protestantism, like a domino effect. Fact is, we don’t follow Luther. We follow Christ.

Peter was given the keys, as was the whole Christian Church. Peter was the first to receive these “keys” because he would be the first to preach the Gospel of Christ (Acts 2).

What or who do you have faith in? Mine is in Christ.

You, again, fail to see the obvious. It’s sad how proud Catholics are. Pride is a great offense to God. There is one Church: The Holy Christian Church. I’m in it. Maybe you are. Protestants and Catholics are in it. Mormons declare to be the one true church. So do Jehovah’s Witnesses. So do Seventh Day Adventists. So do many others. A great way to signify and identify a cult is to see if it says just that. “We are the only true church.” Really? I believe Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him…not the Catholic Church. The arm of the Lord is never too short. Perhaps we can also say that my brothers in Asia who are being persecuted, killed, hated, etc. are doing Satan’s work, despite preaching Christ? One man had boiling water poured down his throat for having a Bible in his possession. Indeed, all of us non-Catholics are damned despite dying and giving all for Him, right? All of us non-Catholic Christians are lost…

Do you not realize that the Church is Christian? And are Protestants not Christians? Peter called the Church Christian. If the Church is Christian, and I’m Christian, but not Catholic, I’m lost? Hmm…

Again, my arm is different from my leg. My stomach different from my toes. This is the same with the Body of Christ. Lutherans and Catholics are much different, but are a part of the same Body. It seems to me that Catholic want all the glory for themselves. This is incredibly sad and selfish, to say the least.

I’m a Saint. All believers are Saints. I believe in the teachings of the early Saints who wrote the Bible. There’s nothing more that I want, besides glorifying God, than becoming more like Christ. I personally like Jesus Christ as my role model. He’s sinless, God, Savior, Lord, etc. There are some great Saints. But at the end of the day, they fall short; like everyone else. Nothing wrong with reading or following the works of Saints. Compare what they say to Scripture, though.

Yes, there are many Catholics who are Christians. Did I never say this? You are confusing me, because I never said you weren’t…Getting a little defensive over things I didn’t say?..

I also told the Protestants to silence themselves. Why did you only say “Why do we as Catholics have to silence ourself?” Why didn’t you include your Protestant brethren. I was defending both sides. Or did you miss the part where I said, “Protestants, silence yourself. Your Catholic brethren do not worship Mary, saints, or images.” Are you saying Catholics can be open but Protestants should be silent? You seem to be omitting and excluding all things I said to Protestants as well. Like I’m speaking one-sided…

May I suggest you calm yourself a little bit? You seem tense. God bless you with His greatest Grace, Mercy, and Love.

You say that all believers are saints. You claim that you are a saint? What about the devil is he not a believer? THe devil is probally the biggest believer in God. And him a Saint? I think not. I would like to see that scripture that says all believers are saints. Please show that scripture to me. Could you please also show me where I ever said you were lost. You are putting words in my mouth. ANd could you tell me what gives you the right to tell any Christian Protestant or Catholic to silence themselves? Is this not a forum to compare and share our faith with others and help eachother see our point of views. How could we possibly do that by be silent? And for your infor I personally like Christ for my role model also too. But I also like the Blessed Mother and she is also sinless. And I also like to use the Saints as my role model. What is wrong with that. Could you also show me scripture that says this is something wrong with wanting to imitate the Blessed Mother and the Saints. Because they are also what I would like to become Christlike. Is that not what a saint is Christ like?