Marthin Luther’s Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter LostSheep7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LostSheep7

Guest
As far as I know Martin Luther was never released from his vow of celibacy by the Church.
How that leaves the status of his marriage with Catharina Von Bora? Was it valid by any means?
I think the same situation may apply for other excommunicated priests like Leonardo Boff.
 
It was validated by his love of Catharina and at that point rules created by man to keep land and money in the hands of Rome didn’t mean much.
 
Last edited:
Dhc8_Type said:
It was validated by his love of Catharina and at that point rules created by man to keep land and money in the hands of Rome didn’t mean much.
Click to expand...
It’s possible to validate poligamy, gay marriage and any type of marriage you want with this kind of excuse.
 
Probably not since final vows are binding unless dispensed by the Pope. I think He was also excommunicated and excommunicated people are not able to receive the sacraments.
(If I am wrong do correct me, because I do not want to be spreading false information)
 
LostSheep7 said:
It’s possible to validate poligamy, gay marriage and any type of marriage you want with this kind of excuse.
Click to expand...
In fact, Luther grudgingly consented to the polygamous marriage of a German prince, as he could find no scriptural prohibition!

😱

hawk
 
Dhc8_Type said:
It was validated by his love of Catharina and at that point rules created by man to keep land and money in the hands of Rome didn’t mean much.
Click to expand...
One is not free to marry just because he is attracted to a woman. If a person has prior vows/commitments then no amount of “love” (lust) can release him.This is like saying a man can take a second wife if he falls in love?

Vows of celibacy taken by monks have nothing to do with keeping land and money in the hands of the Church. Men are free to marry and have children, and they are free to take monastic vows.
 
Martin Luther’s marriage was invalid since he was bound by religious vows. Excommunication did not release him from this. In effect, he was merely cohabitating and fornicating with her, speading scandal by doing so and leading others into mortal sin by example. The worst part is, that as a priest, monk, and professor of theology, he would have known this. Yet, he did it anyway.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
On the other hand, this is exactly why the appointment of married men as bishops ended in the second century
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is not relevant to a vow of celibacy taken by a monk. Monks take vows of celibacy as a part of religious life, and in the community Luther chose, don’t have personal possessions. He chose the most austere order for himself.

But the early preference for unmarried Bishops had more to do with Paul’s instruction that their attentions not be divided.

Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I Cor 7:28

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. I Cor 7:32

Christianity was illegal until the Edict of Milan, so the notion that the Church was somehow hoarding land and property in the first three centuries is difficult to fathom. Christians were still practicing their faith in secret, and any land or assets would have been seized by the Empire.

Married priests and bishops persisted through the 8th century, at which time there were, indeed, property issues. When the spouses and offspring of priests wanted the Church to support them there were legal claims. Then, just as in secular cases, there was the issue of “illegitimate” children. These cases persistent through the middle ages, and even involved popes.

One can see why the Church would prefer to choose from among those called to celibacy! But none of this applied to Luther. He did not want anything to do with the CC, including land or money.
TheOldColonel said:
The worst part is, that as a priest, monk, and professor of theology, he would have known this.
Click to expand...
Well, at that point his faculties to function as a priest had been revoked, and he had lost his professorship post. His attitude toward religious life/vows is one reason that we don’t find religious communities like this in the evangelical world.
 
Last edited:
What does it matter?

Apparently, padre pio stated that Luther is in hell.
 
The excommunication would have been lifted the moment he recanted and repented before the Holy See. That was made clear to him. Yet, he chose the path of rebellion and sin. The truth is Luther was not functioning as a priest prior to excommunication. He never once completed a valid mass due to nervious problems and, indeed, collapsed on the altar more than once. Eventually, he was forbidden to offer mass because the attempt had proven to be a debacle. Yet, his vows as a monk and priest were quite binding at the time of his attemp to marry, also a debacle.
 
guanophore said:
Married priests and bishops persisted through the 8th century,
Click to expand...
Married priests and bishops most definitely did not go out of style together. For bishops, this ended early, both east and west.

And you are citing Paul about marriage in general, not clergy. For clergy, see 1 Timothy 3: “Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, . . .”

Illegal or not, the church still already had property by the second century, and it had already become an issue.

Also, both east and west by that point were already drawing bishops primarily from monasteries rather than the secular Christians, which by itself made married bishops unlikely.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
Also, both east and west by that point were already drawing bishops primarily from monasteries rather than the secular Christians, which by itself made married bishops unlikely.
Click to expand...
Yes, but those in monasteries did not “own” things to themselves, just as those in Luther’s Augustinian order. It is not like they were holding property of their own before they left the monastery. Bishops from monasteries were already committed to religious life - not having divided interests.

Luther had much more material benefit after he left the monastery, but his marriage was not because he was interested in land or money. He did not consider his vows valid anymore, and rejected them, along with a great many doctrines of the faith.
 
guanophore said:
Yes, but those in monasteries did not “own” things to themselves, just as those in Luther’s Augustinian order.
Click to expand...
No, the monasteries didn’t. The church at large, though, did, and all entrusted to the bishop.

hawk
 
It is clear that Luther also had many other mental instabilities - for lack of a better word. There are even theories, quite eloquently defended, that he committed suicide toward the end of his life. It wouldn’t be a surprising action. He had a strict and cold father, a harsh upbringing, the consequences of which we do not know. There are also reports of his epilepsy, and obsessive-compulsive tendencies.

To answer the OP, I think his marriage doesn’t mean a row of beans. His wife was also a former nun, and so the both were under obligations. Excommunication prevents the sacramentally licit marriage contract. Perhaps it was valid, but only legally.
 
Let us hope that God’s great mercy was sufficient for such problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top