Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[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.

And for the record I AM CATHOLIC, and I am appalled by your message. Because I AM CATHOLIC and I have never told anyone they were going to hell. That is not the teachings of the RCC. God is the judge of everyone not I. I cannot tell a heart only God can and only God can judge. Please remember this, for this is the teaching of the RCC and I stand behind it all the way. So when you make a comment started out CATHOLICS TELL ME that would include all Catholics would it not?

And also I never write to be mean or hateful. If it comes across that way it is never intended. And thankyou for Gods blessings and mercys. I can never have enough people praying for me. And never enough grace poured upon me.

 

[rinnie]

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.

But If I could say one thing Luke, The RCC have the Church so that if we do take scripture out of context (which we all do) it is not the teaching of the Church. We can go to the Church to be corrected and get the true context.

Now my next question while I agree many catholics correct may take a reformers point out of context. But who is here to correct us? Because is that not what SS is all about. What our point is by reading others writings. That is why the CHurch does not go by the reformers writings. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[TristanCross]

Rinnie,

Can you please relax? I know, I get zealous when speaking to people not of my faith too.

I am a saint. Please, stop being so literal. It’s annoying, and Catholics do this everytime one of us speaks like this. Obviously I’m not talking about Satan. I’m offended by you even suggesting that, and for your tomfoolery. Obviously I mean genuine believers. Christians. I am a saint. All Christians are saints. It’s said in the Bible. Also, Satan is the biggest believer? Really? I sincerely doubt that…

So let me get this straight. You are offended because I told people to silence their accusations? Okay. Then it’s okay for me to call you a Mary worshipped? Hey, all Catholics worship saints and statues. And for the record, I’m being sarcastic. No need to tell me you don’t worship statues. Stop justifying yourself, please…You mistook my words. Why can’t you admit it?

 

[Bluegoat]

But If I could say one thing Luke, The RCC have the Church so that if we do take scripture out of context (which we all do) it is not the teaching of the Church. We can go to the Church to be corrected and get the true context.

Now my next question while I agree many catholics correct may take a reformers point out of context. But who is here to correct us? Because is that not what SS is all about. What our point is by reading others writings. That is why the CHurch does not go by the reformers writings. Do you understand what I am saying?

This is not really comparable. Remember, the Catholic Church also depends upon writing that are not part of sacred scripture. The Church does indeed constitute a kind of authority, but reading scripture and other religious works in context is the job of each individual as well.

The comments here on Luther’s statements which were presented at the beginning show no effort to put them in context. This is probably just a mistake by a person who was perhaps not very familiar with the cultural practices of Luther’s time, with Catholic practices at that time, and with a too-eager desire to make a fool of Luther and Protestants in general. The last is perhaps a culpable sin, the others are just lack of education.

What is surprising to me is that when some more knowledgeable posters, including Catholic ones, tried to show the larger context, many would not accept it. Why is that - that is the most interesting, and upsetting, question. Do people have such a desire to condemn Luther that they are willing to base it on untruths? Do they not wish to understand the history and development of their own Church, which they love? Do they live in fear that the Church will somehow be shown to be untrue?

I think the problem is most likely that people have misunderstood the Church’s claim to be unchanging Truth, and so think that such information will show the Church to be false. Which is too bad, and suggest a need for better teaching of teenagers and new converts.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Can you please relax? I know, I get zealous when speaking to people not of my faith too.

I am a saint. Please, stop being so literal. It’s annoying, and Catholics do this everytime one of us speaks like this. Obviously I’m not talking about Satan. I’m offended by you even suggesting that, and for your tomfoolery. Obviously I mean genuine believers. Christians. I am a saint. All Christians are saints. It’s said in the Bible. Also, Satan is the biggest believer? Really? I sincerely doubt that…

So let me get this straight. You are offended because I told people to silence their accusations? Okay. Then it’s okay for me to call you a Mary worshipped? Hey, all Catholics worship saints and statues. And for the record, I’m being sarcastic. No need to tell me you don’t worship statues. Stop justifying yourself, please…You mistook my words. Why can’t you admit it?

Tristan I am relaxed trust me. And very happy see:dancing: But you said some things about my Church and my faith that I would like to address. And I believe that if you would give me a shot I can possibly explain why we believe what we do. And why I disagree with you about being a Saint. Thats all. In the end you can still say you disagree with me, but at least give me a shot. And I believe that rather or not you agree with me, Hopefully if it is pleasing to God he will give me the grace to explain in a way to at least can make you understand the teachings of the Church. I believe we could even become friends if you give me a chance. So whata you say?

Like the meatloaf song, whats it gonna be girl yes or no? Or do you need to sleep on it? And give me the answer in the morning

I will be out most of today. Got lots and lots to do. Hope to talk to you later. God Bless

 

[rinnie]

This is not really comparable. Remember, the Catholic Church also depends upon writing that are not part of sacred scripture. The Church does indeed constitute a kind of authority, but reading scripture and other religious works in context is the job of each individual as well.

The comments here on Luther’s statements which were presented at the beginning show no effort to put them in context. This is probably just a mistake by a person who was perhaps not very familiar with the cultural practices of Luther’s time, with Catholic practices at that time, and with a too-eager desire to make a fool of Luther and Protestants in general. The last is perhaps a culpable sin, the others are just lack of education.

What is surprising to me is that when some more knowledgeable posters, including Catholic ones, tried to show the larger context, many would not accept it. Why is that - that is the most interesting, and upsetting, question. Do people have such a desire to condemn Luther that they are willing to base it on untruths? Do they not wish to understand the history and development of their own Church, which they love? Do they live in fear that the Church will somehow be shown to be untrue?

I think the problem is most likely that people have misunderstood the Church’s claim to be unchanging Truth, and so think that such information will show the Church to be false. Which is too bad, and suggest a need for better teaching of teenagers and new converts.

I understand what you are saying, and Yes I can say I agree with you. While I myself do not apporve of what Luther did, I do agree that many many of the teachings of Luther are indeed consistant with the teachings of the RCC. Hopefully with the grace of God we can all help to bring eachother together into the united Sister and Brotherhood where we should be. While I must say Luther did have his part in separating us, we also did our part also. He did not act alone.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

This comes from our Catholic point of view. [SIGN]Luther and the reformers, however, didn’t view marriage as a sacrament[/SIGN]. 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.

[SIGN]/SIGN But here is the thing Luther did understand the teachings of the RCC. He just disagreed with them. According to the RCC Marriage is and always has been a sacrament.

 

[TristanCross]

Tristan I am relaxed trust me. And very happy see:dancing: But you said some things about my Church and my faith that I would like to address. And I believe that if you would give me a shot I can possibly explain why we believe what we do. And why I disagree with you about being a Saint. Thats all. In the end you can still say you disagree with me, but at least give me a shot. And I believe that rather or not you agree with me, Hopefully if it is pleasing to God he will give me the grace to explain in a way to at least can make you understand the teachings of the Church. I believe we could even become friends if you give me a chance. So whata you say?

Like the meatloaf song, whats it gonna be girl yes or no? Or do you need to sleep on it? And give me the answer in the morning

I will be out most of today. Got lots and lots to do. Hope to talk to you later. God Bless

Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you the answer in the morning.

Nah, hit me with your best shot

God bless you too

 

[PJM]

=raumzeitmc2;5618433]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?

***Not God, Not Jesus, Not the Apostles, Not the Bible and Not me It denies the majesty and dual purpose of marriage. Procreation AND [not only] the Unitive aspects.

Just another example of a person who thought that he knew more and knew better, when he apprantely didn’t understand at all. ***

Love and prayers,

 

[rinnie]

Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you the answer in the morning.

Nah, hit me with your best shot

God bless you too

Oh my and a sense of humor too! I am loving it. Okay let me get me gloves on:slapfight:

Okay the first thing we gotta do is leave this thread and open another one. Because we are going to get off Topic and onto alot of other things.

All are welcome.

Okay Tristan I will start another in the NC. I will name it a Protestant and Catholic trying to remain friends. Find me there. To everyone else Carry on. If ya wanna join us all are welcome. Hopefully we can add alot of laughs and all learn something!

 

[PJM]

So friend, if God says NO! But Mr. Luther says “yes.” Whom should you follw, and what will be the consequences?

Love and prayers,

 

[josie_L]

Is this coming from the same man who criticized (although that’s an understatement) JPII for his ecumenism?

 

[olds442]

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.

IF you know your History.The Catholic Church has taken Joan of Ark and Galilieo out of Context as well. I was raised Catholic and beleived everything I was told. However their are two sides to every story.

 

[rinnie]

IF you know your History.The Catholic Church has taken Joan of Ark and Galilieo out of Context as well. I was raised Catholic and beleived everything I was told. However their are two sides to every story.

Actually there are 3 sides to every story. His side, her side and then the truth. The RCC is the truth. That was promised to us by Jesus.

 

[HollyDolly]

Beat me to the punch.

Martin Luther came before the Council of Trent when it was decided that a Priest had to officiate a wedding, thus make a marriage. When Luther was alive only the landed nobility went to a cleric, a government clerk in the modern sense, who recorded the transaction so that the political/economic deals and obligations of the royal families being sealed by the marriage could take place.

The people simply moved in together and by common law they were married. If they were church going they simply showed up at church and announced that they in fact had moved in together, thus had married.

It was only after Martin Luther died that the ceremony that the nobility had as a party warm-up event was passed down to the common folk as the Church ordered their cleric/clerks to perform that function for Average Joe that he always had for Bonny Prince.

It also seems to me in those days people had published what they call marriage bans.Which I think was telling everyone that couple so and so were going to be married.
Also I think before Henry the Eigth married Anne Boleyn, there was some question about her maybe being bethrothed to Henry Percy, Later Duke of Northumberland.I can’t recall the details. That was another thing back in those days,at least amongst the gentry and nobility, whether someone had contracted a marriage or what ever to someone before they planned to get married to the current love. Brides in those days had doweries, either land, money or both.Many marriages amongst the nobility weren’t love matches by any means.

 

[rinnie]

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?

We all read the quote. It was quite clear Sex BEFORE MARRIAGE. Now the question at hand was who agrees with it? Now people have tried to say it meant this or that. I was just commenting on what was said, and it was quite clear. I said it does not go by the teachings of the RCC today nor ever did. I stand by my statement. People either agree or disagree with me. BUt let me make myself clear. THe RCC has never taught it, nor accepted it. You must be married not engaged to have sex, if you want to follow the teachings of the RCC. Now I know what I read and it goes against the RCC.

Again please go back and read what the quote said, and show me where I am misunderstanding it? If anyone sees it the way I do, there is no other option then to also agree with me that this is not the teaching of the RCC and goes against the teachings 100%.

 

[Bluegoat]

We all read the quote. It was quite clear Sex BEFORE MARRIAGE. Now the question at hand was who agrees with it? Now people have tried to say it meant this or that. I was just commenting on what was said, and it was quite clear. I said it does not go by the teachings of the RCC today nor ever did. I stand by my statement. People either agree or disagree with me. BUt let me make myself clear. THe RCC has never taught it, nor accepted it. You must be married not engaged to have sex, if you want to follow the teachings of the RCC. Now I know what I read and it goes against the RCC.

Again please go back and read what the quote said, and show me where I am misunderstanding it? If anyone sees it the way I do, there is no other option then to also agree with me that this is not the teaching of the RCC and goes against the teachings 100%.

Where you are misunderstanding:

1. He does not condone it, he says it is wrong.
2. He is not talking about an engagement.
3. His position on this not being the same kind of sin as a person not betrothed having sex is no different from what a Catholic would have said at the time. And indeed, many would say even now that having sex with someone you are planning to marry next week is not the same as doing it with someone you met last night at the bar.

But #1 is the big one. ** He does not condone it**.

 

[Marlowann]

Thus there is a great difference indeed between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage.

This is the only claim Luther makes, namely that there’s a difference between the two, and not that either is acceptable.

Secondly, he is not the protestant equivalent of the pope.

Thirdly, if you do not acknowledge the fact that there is a difference in gravity between the two sins, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Don’t let enthusiasm prevent you from realizing that you’re about to put words in someone else’s mouth.

 

[theistgal]

We all read the quote. It was quite clear Sex BEFORE MARRIAGE. Now the question at hand was who agrees with it?

Maybe the Catholic Church, around the same time period?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm:

In one case, it is true, according to earlier ecclesiastical law, the previous relation of mere espousal between man and woman became a lawful marriage (and therefore the Sacrament of Marriage), namely when a valid betrothal was followed by consummation. It was a legal presumption that in this case the betrothed parties wished to lessen the sinfulness of their action as much as possible, and therefore performed it with the intention of marriage and not of fornication. The efficient cause of the marriage contract, as well as of the sacrament, was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way. This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb., 1892, by Decree of Leo XIII, as it had grown obsolete among the faithful and was no longer adapted to actual conditions.

 

[yankee_doodle]

It was quite clear Sex BEFORE MARRIAGE. Now the question at hand was who agrees with it?

I do