Luther permitted premarital sex between engaged couples.

[rinnie]

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**.

Okay then you show me where this goes with the teaching of the RCC. SHow it to me! Thanks!

In the RCC no sex before marriage. It has always been there always will be. please show me the scripture that disagrees with this, and goes by the teaching of Luther!

 

[rinnie]

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Sorry that is the teaching of the church.

There are many kinds of sins …Now the wroks of the flesh are plain FORNICATION, impurity licentiousness, idolatry sorcery … I warned you before that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Now that what it says you can say what you want but that is the teaching of the CCC.

Go to 1852 in the CCC and read it for yourself.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Rinnie… you really need to step back. Pause. And breathe. [Repeat as necessary]

 

[yankee_doodle]

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Sorry that is the teaching of the church.

There are many kinds of sins …Now the wroks of the flesh are plain FORNICATION, impurity licentiousness, idolatry sorcery … I warned you before that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Now that what it says you can say what you want but that is the teaching of the CCC.

Go to 1852 in the CCC and read it for yourself.

I’m definitely not inheriting a kingdom … unless I have an uncle nobody told me about who dies and leaves me his kingdom? Then again I don’t think people have kingdoms anymore. So nope, no kingdoms in my future

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie… you really need to step back. Pause. And breathe. [Repeat as necessary]

Why would I have to step back and breathe? All I did was show you the teaching from the CCC. I just showed you what it said. Why do I have to take a chill pill here. I am calm, and cool. Actually cooler in about 2 hours. Getting happier by the moment. Long week end ahead!

 

[Bluegoat]

Okay then you show me where this goes with the teaching of the RCC. SHow it to me! Thanks!

In the RCC no sex before marriage. It has always been there always will be. please show me the scripture that disagrees with this, and goes by the teaching of Luther!

Yes, as does Luther. No sex before marriage. So what is your issue?

I am hesitant to say more, since you don’t seem to want to actually take in anything that has been said, or even read what Luther has said in the text quoted. However, as for the RCCs understanding of betrothal and the degree of sin attached to sex between betrothed people - if you read the up-thread, there are some good examples of how the Church understood these things. The vow taken in a betrothal was like the vow taken to marry, with the same degree of commitment and implications.

The RCC also is not a proof-texting kind of church - I have no clue what it is you are looking for from scripture. It wouldn’t make any sense anyway if you aren’t willing to consider the conventions what the writer was actually referring to in the text.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Why would I have to step back and breathe? All I did was show you the teaching from the CCC. I just showed you what it said. Why do I have to take a chill pill here. I am calm, and cool. Actually cooler in about 2 hours. Getting happier by the moment. Long week end ahead!

I think you made my point for me.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, as does Luther. No sex before marriage. So what is your issue?

I am hesitant to say more, since you don’t seem to want to actually take in anything that has been said, or even read what Luther has said in the text quoted. However, as for the RCCs understanding of betrothal and the degree of sin attached to sex between betrothed people - if you read the up-thread, there are some good examples of how the Church understood these things. The vow taken in a betrothal was like the vow taken to marry, with the same degree of commitment and implications.

The RCC also is not a proof-texting kind of church - I have no clue what it is you are looking for from scripture. It wouldn’t make any sense anyway if you aren’t willing to consider the conventions what the writer was actually referring to in the text.

What I look for from Scripture is the truth. And what scripture teaches me is the RCC is the fullness of the truth. I am sorry that because I cannot agree with you that bethrothal is the same vow as marriage you accuse me of whatever you are accusing me of. I am not even sure know what it is? Anger? ignorance? Pride? I really do not know.

I have taken in everything that has been said, I just don’t see it the way you do or agree with it is all. I read the text that was given and disagree with it, and showed you scripture where the Church does too.

Like you said you see it the way you see it, and I see it the way I see it. You want me to see it your way and I can’t because that is not what it says. Its states plain as day that its sex before marriage and thats forbidden in the RCC.

I wish I could turn it around to make you happy but I can’t. It is what it is.

On a lighter note may you all have a wonderful weekend! Gotta love the holidays.

 

[PJM]

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.

***And this from a man, who denined God, denied Gods Founded Church, and rewrote a great deal of God Holy Writ.

And of course such sex is open to the possibility of birth right:shrug: ***

 

[Steven_John]

I didnt see Luther’s statement as permission but defining difference.

If one says lets get engaged and see how it goes we can set a date later on, the story would be different

I see engagement as a promise or pledge to declare marriage b4 community.

If YHWH knows the heart b4 it is spoken then an engaged couple genuine walking with YHWH is married.

Very different to getting it on with some one you dont hold in your heart 4 eternity.

 

[Bluegoat]

Like you said you see it the way you see it, and I see it the way I see it. You want me to see it your way and I can’t because that is not what it says. Its states plain as day that its sex before marriage and thats forbidden in the RCC.

And where has Luther said that it is a good thing for the unmarried to have sex? Can you quote the text please?

 

[PJM]

=Steven John;5666008]I didnt see Luther’s statement as permission but defining difference.

If one says lets get engaged and see how it goes we can set a date later on, the story would be different

I see engagement as a promise or pledge to declare marriage b4 community.

If YHWH knows the heart b4 it is spoken then an engaged couple genuine walking with YHWH is married.

Very different to getting it on with some one you dont hold in your heart 4 eternity.

***Sorry folks but your not going to change Gods understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Nor will you change the Moral teaching of the CC.

Right remains right, and wrong remains wrong!***

 

[yankee_doodle]

forget Luther, I say it’s great for the unmarried to have sex (assuming it’s safe sex of course). In fact IMO there’s not nearly enough sex in this world.

 

[PJM]

=yankee_doodle;5668173]forget Luther, I say it’s great for the unmarried to have sex (assuming it’s safe sex of course). In fact IMO there’s not nearly enough sex in this world.

Friend,

Some opinions are better left unexpressed. This is one of them.

If you really wish to discusss the issue, there are more prudent ways to do so.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Steven_John]

***Sorry folks but your not going to change Gods understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Nor will you change the Moral teaching of the CC.

Right remains right, and wrong remains wrong!***

Your a hoot, where did i say i wanted to change Gods understanding, where did i say i wanted to change the RCC.

Do you have trouble getting through doorways with your soap box glued to your shoes? My experience is little people need anything to look tall.

Stick with what people post or dont quote people, your rude.

By His will may God bless and guide you

 

[yankee_doodle]

Friend,

Some opinions are better left unexpressed. This is one of them.

If you really wish to discusss the issue, there are more prudent ways to do so.

Love and prayers,

Pat

I was just joking around, but you’re right (it wasn’t appropriate). I grabbed a ruler and smacked myself on the hand.

 

[PJM]

=Steven John;5670241]Your a hoot, where did i say i wanted to change Gods understanding, where did i say i wanted to change the RCC.

Do you have trouble getting through doorways with your soap box glued to your shoes? My experience is little people need anything to look tall.

Stick with what people post or dont quote people, your rude.

By His will may God bless and guide you

Gosh, thanks

All this time I though we were to try to stick to the topic of the OPQ:shrug:

Love and prayers dear friend,

Pat

 

[Steven_John]

Love and prayers to u also PJM

 

[TertiumQuid]

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

raumzeitmc2 (aka, Ben)

You really should read things in context before you post. This one you got very wrong.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A correction:

The quote posted above,

Should actually read:

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

Also, I found this:

St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 217

St. Basil’s words do not prove immorality - only that such a person should not so act. Why not ? Because of being a reader, or because such conduct is completely ewrong for a Christian ? The quotation leaves us in the dark. So far as the words go there is nothing to show that what he rejects is wrong if done by others, such as laymen, do it.​

An analogy: Latin-Rite clerics are not allowed to marry - but it would be very rash to suppose therefore that the prohibition means no-one else is allowed to either. So too this canon may be forbidding something only to some in the Church at Caesarea, and not to all. Besides, the canons of one Church are not for all the Churches - so what did the other Churches rule ? What was forbidden at Caesarea in the fourth century, was not necessarily forbidden in fourth-century Rome or fourth-century anywhere else; & it is an absurd assumption to imagine that 16th-century German Christians were bound by marriage laws made for clerics in fourth-century Caesarea, or anywhere else. Such an assumption needs to be proved, not taken for granted. Why should Luther, or anyone of his time, care what had been decreed for clerics in fourth-century Caesarea ?