The following discussion took place on the CARM boards. I realize this topic is a bit dull, but it's always a great reminder how how poorly some of Rome's defenders are at actually looking stuff up before they post it. I've also back-posted a very similar discussion from the Catholic Answers forums from last year: Luther's View of Mary on Catholic Answers Forums.
A Roman Catholic going by the name "Aquinas" posted:
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ…She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Martin Luther, Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace…Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ…Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." (Martin Luther, Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
This sort of thing was hidden from me as a Lutheran (for ~30 years).
I listened for 30 years. These things were never mentioned to me while a Lutheran. I think the reasons are obvious.
Fairly common topics posted by such Internet apologists include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.
Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Some of the Roman Catholics during Luther's day actually were suspicious of his Mariology, particularly his explanation of the Magnificat. Even later Roman apologists, some quite hostile to Luther understood this:
Hartmann Grisar, commenting on Luther’s Magnificat states, “[Luther] certainly was in no mood to compose a book of piety on Mary. The result was that the book became to all intents and purposes a controversial tract, which cannot be quoted as a proof of his piety or serenity of mind during those struggles.”[Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD, 1915), 502].
For further information see: Luther's Magnificat: A Representation of Luther's Lifelong Mariology?
Or, for detailed a look at Luther's Mariology, see: Martin Luther's Mariology (Index)
At least we got an indirect admission that Martin Luther's theology constantly shifted, and lacked anything resembling consistency. Even in his lifetime, Sola Scriptura had failed him as a praxis.
It can be argued from various schools of thought that he had moments of lucidity. Which moments were lucid entirely depends on the perspective of the one making the claim. Naturally, when he spoke these things of Mary, I would consider them lucid moments.
They need not "support Romanism" to make a point in being discarded, hidden, or otherwise ignored by protestant theologians (save to point out that Luther allegedly held your consensus's view on Mary rather than his Catholic view, being a Catholic Priest, before he was a schismatic bearing theological ideas on the toilet).