Thomas O'Meara: Overview of Luther's Mariology

Roman Catholic historian Thomas O’Meara has done one of the better overviews of Luther's Mariology. He presented his perspective in the book, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966). Since I've read this book and used his research, I see he now has his own homepage and contact information. I wonder if in the last 40 years he has anything else to say on this? I would like to publicly thank him for his work on this subject. The material presented below was compiled for one of my papers hosted on the NTRmin website.

Similar to my main thesis that as Luther’s theology grew, elements of his Mariology were rejected, minimized, or reinterpreted as he clung to and developed his commitment to solus Christus, O’Meara notes that Luther’s theology of Mary grew and developed:

“Luther's attitude toward the theology of Mary and toward the devotion which a Christian should have to the Mother of God is a small-scale representation of his entire religious accomplishment. During any discussion of Luther and the Blessed Virgin we must keep uppermost in our minds that there was a development in his ideas, a change more or less drastic in each aspect of Marian theology. This development has its beginning in Catholicism; it passes through contradictions, struggles, and uncertainties, and terminates in a new Marian viewpoint, one which Luther decided was christocentric, biblical, unexaggerated, and edifying” [p.113].

O’Meara notes two factors which recast medieval Mariology for Luther. The first was the abuses in popular devotion. The second was Luther’s theological concept of faith alone:

"Faith alone, a grace which was Christ's pardon from sin, liberation from the concepts of merit and good works, freedom from dependence on the intercession and the accomplishments of creatures —these ideas could not but lead to a new frame of reference for Mary, the exemplar of the Catholic Christian and the first among the Saints.

In works on Luther's Mariology a false picture has occasionally been given because the principle of Luther's mariological evolution has not been kept in the foreground. We are told that Luther accepted the Assumption and yet forbade the singing of the Salve Regna; that he preached of Mary as immaculately conceived and also as a sinner. The time element, the dating of Luther's remarks, is all-important. Luther's Marian theological evolution in the years 1513-1527 has its own coherence, but the reformer's thought is definitely changing, and not always in the same direction" [pp. 113-114].

Catholic Scholar William Cole cites this same paragraph from O’Meara, but goes on to offer an interesting insight: “What Luther said in regard to the possibility of a reader being led into error regarding his attitude toward the Pope because of his earlier writing (very favorable up until 1519) can be applied to his attitude toward his veneration of Mary. In his Latin writing of 1545 he asked his readers to read his earlier writings "with judgment and even with much compassion." He then goes on to say, "Good readers you will attribute this error to my ineptitude. I was alone at first and surely inept and unlearned for treating such things" (Marian Studies XXI, 109.

Note that O’Meara is suggesting Luther had a unique Mariology that developed. It was not simply a rehashing of Catholic orthodoxy. O’Meara does present the criticism that Luther’s thought is changing, “and not always in the same direction.” I have never denied this in certain minor points, but for the most part I would argue the direction was primarily forward.

The bulk of O’Meara’s material is an historical overview of Luther’s comments in regard to Mariology. I have arranged O’Meara’s research in chronological order [pp. 114-119].

1513: “Before the year 1513, we have no indications of antipathy 'towards Catholicism's acceptance of Mary. We have sermons on the Assumption where he asks Mary to make us good servants of God. We have a eulogy of Mary as God's finest creation. Reflecting upon this time in his life, Luther says that his mentality was Catholic, embracing the commonly accepted though not yet defined teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. He writes that it seemed to him he put Mary in the place of Christ, He had "hung his heart upon her."

1513-1516: “…Luther first expressed doubts with regard to any emphasis of Mary. Elsewhere, in a sermon for a Marian feast in 1516, he gave voice to these thoughts which had been in his mind for several years: The Blessed Virgin sees God in all things. . . . Although Elizabeth with great perception sees Mary to be the Mother of God, even more perceptively the Virgin sees God in all things; he alone is great. Therefore the most pure venerator of God is the Blessed Virgin, who magnifies God above all things; she has no idols. She boasts of nothing her self, nothing of merit, no work; she is, by her own admission, purely passive and a receiver, not a doer of good works.”

“In other Marian sermons during this year he protested against the figures of Mary and the saints obscuring the power of God and of the saving blood of Christ. His polemic had not yet become strong. This same year he preached on the Assumption and said, "0 Happy Mother, 0 Excellent Virgin, think on us; make us to serve God very well."

1517: “In 1517 Luther spoke of Mary's sinlessness…”

1518: “In 1518, as an incidental remark in a treatise on the problem of indulgences, Luther says that almost all of Christendom believes in the Immaculate Conception but that to hold the opposite is not heresy because it has not yet been defined. On the eighth of December, 1520, he bypasses the problem as less important than our own contact with sin.”

1519: “While preaching on the preparation for a happy death, he advised calling on Mary at the hour of death.”

1520: “[T]he negative current was swelling. Luther's principle for Marian theology appears in a final sermon on the Feast of the Assumption. If Mary detracts from Christ and God (and Luther is becoming more convinced that she has done so in the past), then we must practice christocentric moderation. Mary must be honored, but Christ must be the matrix of this veneration. Mary exists for Christ alone, and this is the view of the Bible.”

1521: “At this period of change, 1521, Luther wrote his Commentary on the Magnificat. This work brings together several strange elements. First of all, it is intended as a book of instruction in religion and administration for a prince. There are anti-Roman passages in it. The previous year he had written solemn and final words of separation: "Farewell, unhappy, hopeless, blasphemous Rome!" We can detect germinal expressions of Luther's personal theology, but these views, especially his views on Mary, have not reached their full originality. Dozens of very Marian passages could be quoted—Mary is Queen, free of sin—but this commentary is a work of transition. In the introduction Luther prays, "May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers." At the end he invokes Mary.”

“In between these prayers he bemoans the incorrect Mariology which emphasizes Mary so much. Never has so much idolatry existed in the world, and Marienverehrung is a cause. Luther minimizes merit and the actions of man striving for salvation. "I say Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing; God does all. We ought to call upon her that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also, all other saints are to be invoked, so that their work may be every way God's alone." Luther will soon resolve this problem in his distinction between Mary as a vocal intercessor and as an advocate who truly accomplishes something for her clients, an advocate who has special access to the King. The first (a Furbitterin) Luther accepts; the second (a Filrsprecherm) he rejects. Mary and the saints, like ourselves, are poor and weak; they have no special claim on God. No other creature's work can help man. Luther's spiritual struggle had led him to depend upon God alone. He would not abandon this confidence to make Mary an intercessor or mediator.”

1522: “In 1522 he still speaks of Mary's complete sinlessness, and he will retain this belief for five more years before doubts enter.”

“In 1522 Luther preaches on the feast of the Assumption, apparently taking this belief for granted, although he notes that it is not an article of faith. He observes that the gospel says nothing of this, and the burden of his message is that it is more important to know that the saints are in heaven, and that we will join them, than to know how they got there. In 1530 he decrees that the Assumption is an aspect of the "hypocritical Church" which should be eliminated.”

“The year 1522 finds him in the pulpit on the feast of the Assumption with words which make Mary no different from the blessed souls in heaven.”

1523: “In 1523 he counsels that it is not harmful to invoke Peter or Mary. He wishes to eliminate this devotion to Mary only because of the abuse.”

1522-1527: “Between the years 1522 and 1527 we have a changing but vacillating opinion on the Immaculate Conception.” “In 1522, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, he had uttered a phrase: "With regard to birth I must say that only Christ was born in purity.”

1527: “In 1527 Luther preached a long sermon on the conception of Mary. First he discusses the nature of original sin, then the suitability of the Virgin Birth as a means of excluding original sin in the humanity of her Son. He then discusses Mary's own conception. Her body had the effects of original sin and was conceived in the ordinary way; therefore, in this sense, we can say that she had original sin. "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul ... it is believed that it took place without contracting original sin. Therefore the Virgin Mary is in the middle between Christ and all other men ... for her first conception was without grace, but the second was full of grace. . . . Just as men are conceived in sin both with regard to body and soul, and Christ is free of sin—body and soul—so Mary the Virgin is conceived according to the body without grace, but according to the soul she is full of grace."

1528: “In 1528 he abandons for a time his position of 1522 on Mary's complete freedom from sin. He speaks of a purification of Mary at the time of Christ's birth which keeps her, who was not conceived immaculate, free from sin.”

1530: “In 1530 he decrees that the Assumption is an aspect of the "hypocritical Church" which should be eliminated.”

“By the 1530's Luther was stern in his condemnations. "The Salve Regina says too much." "The Papists have made Mary an idol." "We will keep celebrating the feast [of the Visitation] to remind us that they taught us apostasy."”

1531: “…in Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531, Mary is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”

1532: “In 1532 he denied any notion of a special conception of Mary. "Mary is conceived in sin just like us. . . ." Finally, about this time in an undated letter, Luther agrees with Staupitz' comment that the Immaculate Conception is a "fraud." The subsequent years offer quotations which advocate the doctrine of Mary's sanctification in conception along with passages which could be interpreted as denying it. It is likely, but not certain, that he eventually denied the Immaculate Conception.”

1540: “By 1540 theories on Mary's "impeccability are vanishing. Another idea runs parallel to these two of sinlessness and purity; it is Luther's interpretation of the name Mary. His "Catholic" or early etymology follows St. Jerome. Mary becomes, in Latin, Stella Marts, and this is rendered in German as Tropfen im Meere. Mary is a pure drop in the sea of fallen humanity. But later Mary is only Meerestropfen—a drop out of the sea, no different from the rest of men. His preaching follows the new etymology. "We cannot all be the mother of God; otherwise she is on the same level with us." "Your prayers, 0 Christian, are as dear to me as hers. And why? Because if you believe that Christ lives in you as much as in her, then you can help me as much as she."

1544: “In 1544 the Assumption is abandoned as a feast; the Ascension of Christ alone is recognized: “The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother about how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. (The Pope takes away veneration due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like in all things to the Son.)”

This is the main historical argument put forth by O’Meara to substantiate “Luther’s Mariological evolution” which should be “kept in the foreground.” I have argued similarly.

Luther and the Assumption

Here's a few comments on a recent version of a Romanist blog entry that I looked at June 30, in the evening.

This Romanist argues he has positive evidence proving Luther believed in Mary's Assumption. He seems to believe that it's enough to count scholars to determine truth. I will say, there can be some value to this approach, if the scholars cited actually present their evidence. At least then, one can look at the evidence! But go ahead, go skim through whatever version of His blog entry that is currently up. The scholars alluded to provide very minimal evidence (some of it I've noted either on this blog or on the NTRmin site, years ago). One thing I've come across, is sometimes scholars aren't even checking the context, they're simply borrowing quotes from other scholars. I've run into instances in which they've either used Thurian, or Cole as documentation for Luther's Mariology, and not actually looked up the references they cite.

At least in the version of the blog entry I'm looking at, there isn't any conclusive or compelling information presented from Luther's actual pen that states he believed in Mary's Assumption. There is simply allusions to a single quote from 1522 probably utilized by many of the scholars. The Romanist cites, "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith." I'm sorry, but this isn't compelling, for the reasons I've already stated. The Romanist thinks I view this quote as "irrelevant and inconclusive." Well, the quote is definitely not irrelevant, but it's definitely inconclusive... without a context! It's very odd, that "how it happened we do not know," when translated into Catholic-speak becomes "Luther believed in the Assumption."

This is something I simply don't understand about this Romanist's methodology. Given all the countless hours of Google searches he does, one would think he would actually join me in pursuing truth via research. One would think he would be interested in contexts and the historical development of Luther's Mariology. One would think, on such an important topic to his brand of Catholic apologetics, he would want to use caution before posting Luther quotes without knowing the context. How many times will we have to go through this? Haven't I shown him enough times to actually read Luther, before citing Luther?

I've already stated it may actually be Luther believed in some form of the Assumption early in his career. This Romanist leaves this out for some reason. Cole mentions this 1522 quote was the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, which should tip us all off on where Luther was heading with his "Mariology" (recall, Luther lived till 1546, thus this comment comes very early in his "Reformation"). Why does the Romanist leave out that I said this?

On to the absurd, and I even hesitate to comment on this, because it has nothing to do with Luther research- This Romanist is now calling me things like, "that pseudo-scholar, wannabe-apologist " and "Anti-Catholic pseudo-scholar John Q. 'Deadhead.' " I'm not sure exactly why he's been calling me "John Q. 'Deadhead" (by the way, I've never liked the Grateful Dead), but if it makes him feel better about his work in Catholic apologetics, he's welcome to continue to use it, and quite frankly, I don't really care enough to dig through his blog to find out why he's currently using this particular insult.

The Reformers and the Assumption

Here's one I caught on the CARM Catholic board:

We know that in the early Church, a belief arose in [Mary's] Assumption (as documented in the Transitus and the Dormition), and that belief was consistent down through the centuries - never refuted as a heresy. Even through the time of the Reformation, men such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the truth of the Assumption.

My response: OK, let's see the proof. I'm very interested.

The proof: From Luther's sermon on August 15, 1522 (the feast of the Assumption)- "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith." Regarding John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, I may be mistaken. I can find nothing from them either supporting or denying their belief in the Assumption, as they do not appear to have taken much of a position on that particular subject. I withdraw my assertion regarding these two. In my opinion, the Assumption of Mary is not just telling us something about Mary, but it's also a "preview" of what awaits us as Christians.

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith"- This quote doesn't say Luther believed in Mary's Assumption. There simply isn't enough of a context to know exactly what Luther was talking about. In 1522, early in the Reformation, it would not be so outrageous to find Luther making a statement like this that would allow for some version of the Assumption.

I strongly doubt you have the context for this quote. If you did, you'd be one of the first. Recently I noticed Catholic writer George Tavard alludes to it in his book, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin on pages 112-113. Tavard assumes that Luther did not "repudiate" Mary's Assumption, but he offers no proof he affirmed it. This is a typical Roman Catholic argument- no proof of x and no denial of x equals belief in x.

Now, let's take off our Assumption Dogma glasses for a moment with that Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following quote:

This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.

Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven? For those wanting to affirm the Assumption, no lack of information will stop them from finding the Assumption, I'm sure. I strongly suggest if you want to believe in the Assumption, leave the Reformers out of it. Believe in the Assumption for the only reason there is: Rome has said so.For more information about Luther and the Assumption, see:

Luther: The Assumption was a Settled Fact? (Part 1)

Luther: The Assumption was a Settled Fact? (Part 2)

Luther: The Assumption was a Settled Fact? (Part 3)

As with Luther, you are mistaken with Calvin, not "may be mistaken."

Luther: The Assumption Was A Settled Fact? (Part 3)

I didn't plan on doing three entries on Luther and the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's Bodily Assumption (especially since very few probably actually care). In the grand scheme of things, it is really an insignificant point. But, I like the fact of having these entries to refer back to when needed, and it is yet another opportunity to show what those devoted to Rome do with history in the service of their church. My previous entries can be found here:

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?: A look at Catholic Apologist Mark Shea's proof that Luther believed in the Assumption because of a sculpture near his tomb.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact? (Part 2): A look at Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas' claim that Luther "...did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

No treatment of Luther's Mariology would be complete without consulting the work of one particular Catholic apologist. He says on Luther and the Assumption:

"[Luther's]Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied - although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ." Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."(Sermon, September 1, 1522)"

He uses similar argumentation of Stravinskas and Cole, but with a twist: Luther must have held a lifelong belief in the Assumption because he never denied it. In my earlier post, I traced the popular notion that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption, even though never pronouncing on it clearly, and that this notion comes from a mis-reading of a footnote by Max Thurian. His argument is only slightly different but just as weak. I pointed out this faulty method of argumentation in part one, via this quote:

"But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.

If we followed this method of argument, we could prove Luther believed in Santa or Bigfoot, simply because no evidence exists to prove he did not. I think it's important to keep in mind, it seems Catholic apologists do not have any positive evidence to offer that Luther actually believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary. The closest they get is the 1522 quote, and this quote never affirms Mary's Bodily Assumption.

As I pointed out previously, by the time of his later lectures in Genesis, Mary is considered along with the other women of the Bible whose deaths are not recorded. One thing we can say about this quote, Mary's death is not distinguished from any of the other women whose deaths are not recorded in the Bible:

"Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described....Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God."

We can at least give this apologist credit for noting Luther's later disdain for the Feast of the Assumption. Catholic historian Thomas O’Meara points out:

“In 1544 the Assumption is abandoned as a feast; the Ascension of Christ alone is recognized: '“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother about how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. (The Pope takes away veneration due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like in all things to the Son.)' "

William Cole points out that Luther,

"...used strong language....for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the 'hypocritical church',” particularly in celebrating a feast for it. Cole cites Luther as saying in 1544: 'The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things."

Catholic apologists seem to downplay this evidence. Somewhere I have the contexts of these Luther quotes, and I'll post them at a later date.

One thing I also wanted to mention about this internet apologist's argumentation is how similar it is to the old article by William Cole. Cole states:

"For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it. It is in this sense that Walter Tappolet interpets the Reformer's sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption. Luther had said: 'There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith .' and then explained the significance for him: 'It is enough to know that she lives in Christ, as God is not the God of the dead, but of the living...' If in 1530, he uses strong language in his Admonition to the Ministers, calling for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the 'hypocritical church,' the accent should be placed more on his animosity towards the Church and the celebration of one of its feasts than on the Assumption." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124]

Since the internet apologist doesn't provide any bibliographic documentation for his information, I can think of only a few possibilities to explain the similarities between Cole's article and this apologist's later blog entry.

1. The internet apologist did primary research on Luther. He read Luther's sermon from 1522 in German, and then did a thorough study of all passages from Luther relevant to the Assumption.

2. The internet got a hold of Walter Tappolet's old book Das Marienlob der Reformatoren, translated it, and utilized it in similar fashion as Cole did. Many older writers utilized Tappolet's book. This really is one of the only books to look at this subject closely. In many ways, Catholic writing on Luther's Mariology are only footnotes to Tappolet's book. So, it is within the realm of possibility that the internet apologist used the same source Cole did.

3. The internet apologist did no primary research on Luther's view of the Assumption, but rather utilized Cole's article, or another writer who used Cole's article. Even this quote, "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" is in Cole's article.

This internet apologist hates when I point things like this out, but remember, he's the one claiming to be a professional Catholic apologist. Maybe those committed to Rome will take his research methods seriously, but I do not, unless of course, number #1 turns out to be the approach used. I'd even give him credit for number #2. The approach used in number #3 is simply what anyone can do. It takes no skill or insight. In other words, it is not the approach used by someone claiming to be a professional apologetic writer. At the very least, he could cite which source he used for his Luther/Assumption material, rather than giving the appearance he did actual research for his conclusions. Perhaps he has the information from which secondary source he used elsewhere on website, in which case I would offer my apology, but still challenge his conclusions, and exhort him to do primary research on Luther.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact? (Part 2)

I have some further remarks on Luther and the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption. Let's take a closer look. Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas states, "As far as the assumption goes, he 'did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it.' "

First, note Stravinskas provides no references to any primary material from Luther writings. Rather, Stravinskas is citing the opinion of someone else, William J. Cole ["Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123]. The odd thing about the Cole citation, is that Cole is also actually citing someone else's opinion! See for yourself:

"For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

So I went and took at look at what Max Thurian said. Thurian's comment is as follows:

"On the issue of the Assumption Luther does not speak precisely but is content to assert on August 15th, 1522: 'From this gospel one cannot draw any conclusion about the fashion in which Mary is in heaven- it is not necessary any more to know the fate of the saints in heaven. It is enough to know that they dwell in Christ as God says in Matt. 22: 32: "God is not a God of the dead but of the living' making reference to the text of Exodus 3. 6: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob"' (ibid., 55)." (Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church, p.197)

First, note Thurian never says Luther "simply affirmed" the Assumption. He says Luther made an assertion in 1522. So, shame on Stravinskas for not looking up the basis of Cole's opinion. Then, shame on William Cole, for reading into the Thurian quote the idea that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. We can conclude therefore, that the basis for which this idea of Luther simply affirming the Assumption is based on a mis-reading of Thurian. Thurian states Luther did not speak precisely.

In regard to the Luther quote Thurian provided, there simply isn't enough of a context to know exactly what Luther was talking about. In 1522, early in the Reformation, it would not be so outrageous to find Luther making a statement like this that would allow for some version of the Assumption (as Thurian says elsewhere, the Assumption was"...accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in [its] present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day."). It is interesting to note that Thurian's research and this quote comes from yet another secondary source, Walter Tappolet’s Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. So, what we have here is an opinion on Luther's view in which no one except Tappolet has actually read the primary source. Thurian provides sparse comments on Luther’s Mariology. It is hardly a thorough treatment.

Now, let's take off our Assumption Dogma glasses for a moment with that Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following quote:

"This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.

Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven? For those wanting to affirm the Assumption, no lack of information will stop them from finding the Assumption, I'm sure.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?

I listened to a few of Catholic apologist Mark Shea's webcasts on the Assumption of Mary. Mark made one statement that I would be very interested in having documentation for:

"For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin."

First and foremost, I would be extremely interested in which primary references Shea can provide from Luther in which Luther explicitly confirms a lifelong belief in Mary's Assumption. Saying "settled fact" requires proof. A quote with a context would be nice (and I would hope not to get one of those sparse English translations from a German source that no one has, particularly the person making such a claim). I have done a lot of research into this, so if Shea can pull the assumption out of a Luther-hat, this I'd like to see.

Secondly, as to Luther's burial vault, Shea explains in an old blog entry (edit: no longer available, but found here, and here):

"And, of course, problems with it constituted no difficulty for the Reformers, which is why Luther's tomb is decorated with a bas-relief of the Assumption. Indeed, objections to Mary are johnny-come-latelies on the stage of Protestant theology, as is demonstrated by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge."

This is the claim made by Peter Stravinskas:

"Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian."

This website makes an interesting counter-claim:

"If one believes Peter Stravinskas, it would seem that this inscription on [Luther's] heart is reflected in the inscription on his tomb. Stravinskas published a generally good article on 'The Place of Mary in Classical Fundamentalism', but I'm afraid he made one pious mistake: He maintains that the sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin and inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger which is to be found in the Wittenberger Schlosskirche, where Luther is burried, goes with Luther's tomb. I wish it were so, but I'm afraid it belongs to one of the other tombs in the church. If you google for images of Luther's tomb (or Luthers' Grabmal), you'll see that it is the simplest little slab of stone rising a little out of the floor of the main church, a good distance away from the walls - no "burial chamber" at all. The German tour guide "Baedekkers Allianz Reisefuehrer Deutschland, 1991" mentions that "in the Schlosskirche there is a piece of art by Peter Vischer the Younger, who also created the tombs of Sir Hans Hundt and Prior Henning Gode." So if somebody out there could go by the church and let us know to which tomb this obscure "piece of art" belongs, I would much appreciate it."

And this website states:

"2. Epitaph for Henning Goeden
Directly to the right is located "The Coronation of Mary", a bronze plate created in 1521 by Peter Fischer the Younger, a founder from Nuremburg. A work of great aesthetic merit, the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church."

But, ok, let's for a moment grant that Luther's burial chamber has this particular sculpture. How in the world does this serve as proof Luther held a lifelong belief in the assumption as a settled fact? Mark, if you read this, please try an understand, lack of proof does not mean "proof". You must do better than a burial tomb, or stating something like Luther never spoke against it. Take these words to heart:

"But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.

Luther: Mary... [She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified.

Here's one of a number of quotes used as proof that Martin Luther was devoted and venerated Mary:

[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. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

Documentation

This quote may have entered into cyber space via an earlier form of this article by a defender of Rome. This article says, “Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language.” The quote is used by Rome's defenders indiscriminately. For instance, Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid uses this quote in the exact form in his book, Answer Me This! (p.142) as proof that “modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th century moorings” and how far “modern Protestantism has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the historic Catholic faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.” Madrid’s documentation of the quote equals that as found in various cyber-articles (“Christmas Sermon, 1531”). In terms of documentation, this is far from helpful. What it points to is that some defenders of Roman Catholicism took this quote from a secondary source, never bothering to look it up in context. Had they looked it up, they would have discovered this quote is comprised of words from different sources... and some of the words presented in this picture are probably not a direct citation of Luther but are from a secondary source summarizing his words. This quote is a concocted Roman Catholic hodgepodge at best or a fabrication and propaganda at worst. 

 I suspect the secondary source this quote comes from is William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Marian Devotee?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). If I were to take the time to go through the Internet archive service, Cole states:

In a Christmas sermon of 1531, Luther speaks of Mary as the "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." He goes on to claim that "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” (WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).

Note, the quote as cited by Cole is actually two quotes from two different pages, separated by an entire page! Here is one of the reasons why context is so important, and for some reason, Roman apologists don’t seem to care. What was on that page that separated these two quotes? Roman Catholic apologists can’t tell you!

Conclusion
If you come across a quote like this, it’s not up you to provide the context. It’s the responsibility of those using it to provide a context. It’s up to them to prove they have used the citation correctly. Your first reaction should be, please provide a context. If they can’t provide a context, you should let them know they are not doing responsible research, particularly if they are publishing books with such material. If they want to be taken seriously, they should do serious work!

This entry was written in 2007. Since then, I've been able to dig much deeper into this quote now that more sources are available. See this in-depth blog entry here. 

I contend that only sentences #1 and #3 of the quotes are based on Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531 (often documented as WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).  Unless whoever originally mined this quote had a different edition, WA 34.2.499 is a potential documentation error. WA 34.2:500 is the correct page.

Sentence #2 appears to be from a different sermon ("She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified").  In a 1537 sermon found in WA 45:105 Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" I've yet to discover a meaningful primary source for sentence #4. What complicates this even more is that in this typical English rendering, I believe sentences 2, 3, and 4 were not originally a direct citation of Luther, but rather a summary statement from a secondary English source (Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology). In essence, Roman Catholics have concocted a Luther quote to promote their version of Mariology.

When this quote is broken down into individual sentences, it demonstrates an over-the-top expression of Roman Catholic Mariology... said to come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther begins by calling Mary the "noblest gem" in Christianity, to then referring to her as the personification of nobility wisdom and holiness, then calling for her excessive honor... then weirdly qualifying all of this by preaching: do not go too far with these Marian facts. Not go too far? Think about it: Luther's just claimed Mary is almost as great as Jesus Christ, and like him, she's nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified! Luther also implies one should be in a perpetual state of honoring her... but... don't go too far in your honor and praise or you may injure Christ and the Bible! 

True, Luther does say flowery things about Mary in sentences #1 and #2. But a curious thing happens when the context of sentence #3 is displayed. Sentence #3 states,"We can never honor her enough." In context though, Luther states, 

24. Under the papacy only the mother has been praised and extolled. True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child. Nevertheless, we should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone! (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 219).

Original text (WA 34.2:500)* 

A question needs to be asked of Rome's defenders: what exactly is Marian devotion? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to Mary? Are they the same? Roman Catholic apologists don’t tell you. They leave you thinking both are the same.

“Well,” They may say, “Luther’s devotion was that he preached on her feast days.” Yes, but if you go search out these sermons, more often than not, the sermon has nothing to do with Mary. “Well,” they may say, “Luther wrote hymns about Mary.” Yes, but if you go search out these hymns, you will note the absence of distinctly Roman Catholic Marian praise and find a strong emphasis on Jesus Christ. “Well,” they may say, “Luther venerated Mary.” Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia because biblically these words refer to the same thing. If you search out all the occurrences in which Luther used the word veneration, you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term (see this entry).

Challenge Rome's apologists to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of Marian devotion. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium. Don’t let them make up whatever they want to. Then, apply that official statement to Martin Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but whenRoman  Catholics say honor or devotion, they mean something quite different than Protestants.

*The English rendering of this text utilizes the textual notes found at WA 34.2:500.

Revised March 2026

"Who empowered the Church to grant indulgences? Christ. Who's sacrifice made the indulgences possible? Christ.”

I don’t spend too much time interacting on discussion boards these days, but I admit I do skim through the ones on my sidebar. Recently, I found a discussion on Luther’s Mariology (a subject that usually gets my attention). It interests me, because I’m hoping someone else besides me is actually checking citations rather than posting the usual propaganda.

Here’s a recent thread: Luther’s Mariology, which, unfortunately, is a lot of propaganda, at least from the zealous defenders of Rome who contributed. It is being hosted on (the late) Walter Martin’s discussion boards. I found this thread while searching for something else, and yes, I added my 2 cents to the discussion.

When I read the opening post, I realized the words were…MINE! But, not entirely: some of the words were from a Catholic apologist mixed in with mine, without distinction. So I signed up, and just planned on pointing out that I don't mind people citing my work, but please don't cite my words and someone else's words together without distinction.

In the discussion, I received some fairly hostile rhetoric from a guy named “Vladimir.” He’s …you know, one of those guys who would burn you at the stake in honor of Mother Church if he could.

I wanted to point out one particular thing Vladimir said, just to show the mindset of these people. We brought up “Christ alone”, one of the Reformation slogans. Of course, he felt the Catholic Church did embrace “Christ alone.” I replied, “Believing in indulgences is not part of 'Christ alone'.” His response was as follows:

“Sure it is. Who empowered the Church to grant indulgences? Christ. Who's sacrifice made the indulgences possible? Christ.”

This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. It is sola ecclesia 101, for there is nowhere in the Bible that teaches Christ decided to mix his merit with anyone, Mary, saints, or whoever, in order to sanctify his people. Vladimir’s words show us who the ultimate authority is: Mother Church. They decide that indulgences are true.

But you Christian are reconciled to God by Christ alone, and we have already been reconciled, and need no indulgence:

"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation." (Romans 5:10-11)

“Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. 5:18-20)

Did Luther believe Mary Should Be Given Hyperdulia?

Rome distinguishes between kinds of worship. Mary can receive the highest form of worship/veneration, hyperdulia, which is short of the worship of God. This type of worship is expressed in prayers, songs, ceremonies and pilgrimages. On a discussion board,  a Roman Catholic suggested Martin Luther thought Mary should be given hyperdulia. The quote given was this one, and a particular part of it was underlined:

The old theologians went to astounding lengths [mirabiliter se cruciarunt] in answering this question of whether the humanity is to be worshipped, and they established three ways [species] in which the humanity may be adored: Dulia,when Peter and Paul and all the other saints are adored; hyperdulia, when the Virgin Mary is adored, and here they included the humanity of Christ, and called [this worship] hyperdulia as well; and latria, when Christ is worshipped with regard to his divinity. Christ clearly dissolves [the distinction, for] whoever worships the humanity of Christ here no longer adores a creature (for this is what is meant by the union of natures), but the Creator himself, for the unity is what is fundamental.

The context for this quote can be found here. Anyone reading this quote beyond the underlined section sees the problem: Luther says, Christ clearly dissolves the distinction, and even in the underlined part, Luther is not saying Mary should be given hyperdulia. Luther abandoned the distinctions of latria, dulia, and hyper-dulia. When commenting on Deuteronomy 6:13 Luther said,

Here the scholastics have concocted various dreams about dulia, latria, and hyperdulia.  With one and the same word the Hebrew denotes service toward God and toward men, so that their distinction is useless. But Moses wants to say this: “Serve Him alone. That is, whatever you do, and whether you live under the bondage of men or as a manager of affairs, refer it to Me, and do it in no other name than that you are sure in faith that I alone am served in this (LW 9:71).

But yet this easily found reference doesn't stop Rome's apologists from saying things like:

[Luther] understood the difference between veneration and worship, just as Catholics do (and he also strongly criticized excesses in Marian devotion, just as Catholics also do; particularly in Vatican II). He didn't feel compelled to create the absolute (and quite unbiblical) silly dichotomy that characterizes present-day Reformed thought and much of Protestantism, generally-speaking -- where no creature can ever be given honor, lest this immediately be an assault upon God and idolatry.

I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor", they mean something quite different than Protestants. Missing from the above point is any notion of how a Protestant should honor Mary or how Luther and his contemporaries thought Mary should be honored. The following is a summation from Melancthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

“The saints, and among them the blessed Mary, should be honored in three ways. One should be grateful to God for them. One should take advantage of their examples to strengthen one's own faith. One should imitate their faith and their actions in keeping with one's own calling.”

Is this the complete picture of what Rome means by Marian Devotion? While I’m sure a Roman apologist would agree these are principles in harmony with Catholicism, they can’t possibly mean that these principles fully comprise Roman Catholic Marian piety. To suggest that Luther’s “veneration” of Mary is nothing but Roman Catholicism properly understood is mistaken.

Here is a little survey of the word “veneration” as used by Luther, to see if Luther accepted the Roman Catholic veneration (or praise) of the saints. Below is almost the entirety of references to the word “veneration” in Luther’s Works:


LW 12:284, “… a Franciscan venerates his rule and his St. Francis as an idol.”

LW 16:227, “the papists, having abandoned faith, have venerated sects, works designed to gain righteousness, vigils, cowls, and even their own lice,  invoking the aid of unknown saints, and have fallen not only away from God but in opposition to God.”

LW 17:140, “The soldier thinks, “I shall venerate Saint Barbara;  she will preserve the sacraments for me three days.” This is the basic idea: idolatry is nothing else but an opinion apart from the Word of God.”

LW 23:136, “The Papists… confess that faith in Christ helps, but at the same time they state that the Lord did not exclude other methods. Thus they manufacture many ways that are to lead to eternal life, among which are intercession of the saints, the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the monastic vocation, and the observance of their ordinances. No, all these are of no avail for eternal life. Christ excludes them all; they are definitely rejected.”

LW 24:355, ““Behold, our papistic rabble… have brought it about that everything the pope has been able to decree, dream up, and put on parade—even open deception, such as indulgences, purgatory, pilgrimages, cowls, tonsures, the veneration of saints, etc.—is declared to have come from the Holy Spirit, even though they themselves have to admit that this is not found in the Gospel and that Christ has said nothing about it.”

LW 25:288, “Rude, puerile, and even hypocritical are those people who venerate the relics of the holy cross with the highest outward honor and then flee from and curse their sufferings and adversities.”

LW 25:324, “The Thomists, the Scotists, and the other schools act with the same temerity when they defend the writings and words of their founders with such zeal that they not only disdain to seek their spirit but actually quench it by their excessive desire to venerate them, thinking that it is enough if they merely retain the words even without the spirit.”

LW 34:351, 359, The faculty of Louvain held, “It is rightly done in the church, that we venerate and call upon the saints who are active with Christ in heaven, that they should pray for us. Through their merits also and intercession, Christ here gives us many things; otherwise he will not give. Through them he also performs many miracles on earth.”

Luther responded, “This one thing they have done rightly, that, Christ having been rejected, they may not be atheists altogether, they have invented for themselves new gods and call upon the dead, saints or not saints, that makes no difference to them. [This shows] that, as the people is, such gods it shall have, according to the righteous judgment of God, whose Word they despise and blaspheme. Here it would please to mock them with Elijah, “Cry aloud, for they are gods: they are musing, or they are busy, or they are on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 

LW: 34:23-24, “What was the condition of your churches before our gospel came but a series of daily innovations rushing in one after another, in great number, like a cloudburst? One set up St. Anne,  another St. Christopher,  another St. George,  another St. Barbara,  another St. Sebastian,  another St. Catherine,  another perhaps the Fourteen Helpers in Need.  Who alone wants to recount the new kinds of saint veneration? Are not these innovations? Where were bishops and shouters who should not permit such innovations?

LW 34:54, “The things which have been practice and custom in the pretended church… Veneration of saints, some of whom were never born… Mary made a common idol with countless services, celebrations, fasts, hymns, and antiphons.”

LW 34:20, “From this abomination have come all the other outrages (they had to come from it, too, and there was no way of warding them off), namely, the self-righteousness of so many of the monasteries and chapters, with their worship service, the sacrificial masses, purgatory, vigils, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, indulgences, fasts, veneration of saints, relics, poltergeists, and the whole parade of the hellish procession of the cross.”

LW 35: 198-201, “Thus the worship of saints shows itself to be nothing but human twaddle, man’s own invention apart from the word of God and the Scriptures. Since in the matter of divine worship, however, it is not proper for us to undertake anything without God’s command—whoever does so is tempting God—it is therefore neither to be advised nor tolerated that one should call upon the departed saints to intercede for him or teach others to call upon them…. It was exceedingly bitter for me to tear myself away from [the worship of] the saints, for I was steeped and fairly drowned in it. But the light of the gospel is now shining so clearly that henceforth no one has any excuse to remain in darkness.”

LW 38:159, “For, although we did have baptism, sacrament, and the word, they were nevertheless so perverted and obscured by human doctrine and abuse (when we had grown up and become more mature) that we could no longer glory in them, but had to comfort ourselves with strange masses, our own works, monkery, pilgrimages, veneration of the saints, and similar matters in a manner no different from the way in which the Turks and the Jews console themselves with their works and worship.”

Luther and the Immaculate Conception? The 1540 Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ

There has been a lot of dialog on the CARM boards about Luther's Mariology lately. I have done a lot of work in this area, so I tend to read these threads. Here was a recent Luther quote that was brought up by a Roman Catholic:

Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ

February 27, 1540

conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546

translated from the Latin textWA 39/2,.92-121 by Christopher B. Brown

On the Immaculate Conception of Mary:

Argument: Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth"; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.


I exhorted this Catholic to stay away from topics he didn't know anything about. A close reading of this quote denies any notion that Mary was purified from sin at her conception. Rather, the focus is on Christ’s conception. Here is Luther’s reasoning:

1. The Holy Spirit was present at Christ’s conception to ensure his sinlessness.

2. During Christ’s conception, the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.

Luther: No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity

A friend on the CARM boards is trying to get a defender of Rome to quote Luther in context (or actually provide any context for this Luther quote):

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

This quote came under scrutiny with this CARM discussion: "Sounds Catholic To Me." It's one of those posts filled with context-less Luther quotes on Luther's alleged deep Mariology. Someone wrote me asking for some information on the above Luther citation. I've been around the block with these types of quotes. When one finds Luther being quoted, it's not up to you to produce the context. It is up to the person posting it to produce the context. When you find someone quoting Luther about Mary, ask the following:

1. Why do you think Luther's opinions about Mary are relevant?

2. Which web page did you get the quote from (I'm guessing it was some type of Roman Catholic website)?

3. If the quote is from your own readings of Luther, can you provide the context?

4. If the quote is from a German translation, did you do your own translation?


Source
The defender of Rome who posted this quote on CARM said he was going to the library to track down the context. Here was some helpful information I gave to him before his journey. First, the quote was probably taken from William Cole's article, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary [Marian Studies XXI, 1970, p. 132]. The quote as frequently cited in cyber space appears in this form in Cole's article:

"Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of the Visitation, he marvels at Mary's humility in the face of Elizabeth's great praise, which he makes equivalent to 'No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above all nobility, wisdom and sanctity' " (July 2, 1537- WA 45, 105, 7 to 106, 1].

I'm not sure which Roman Catholic found Cole's article and grabbed this quote. It could have been any one them (I do have my suspicions). Let me blunt: the possibility that a defender of Rome on the internet actually went out and found this non-English version of Luther's sermon from the Weimar edition of Luther's writings, and then translated it into English, is not likely. Roman Catholic internet-apologists typically do not do research like this.


Context
Weimar 45:105-106 can be found here. Notice this is an entire page of text, in Latin and in German. If you look closely at the reference given by Cole, he refers to line 7 on page 105 to line 1 on page 106. This can mean the quote was edited down from these lines into the popular English form it's in now. In this case, what Cole means is that this quote comes from the context of line 7 on page 105 to line 1 on page 106. The quote actually is found beginning on line 10, and finishing on line 13.

In context, Luther is describing the meaning of Elizabeth's words to Mary in Luke 1:42-45, or rather what Elizabeth was saying to Mary.

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

Max Thurian provides some further context as well as an alternate translation:

"...then on another Feast of the Visitation, July 2.1537, Luther said: 'When the Virgin received the acclamation of Elizabeth as being the blessed Mother of God, because she had believed and because all was coming to pass as the angel had spoken, she was not filled with pride by this praise which no other woman had ever yet spoken to her—this immense praise: "No woman is like unto thee! you are more than an empress or a queen! you are more than Eve or Sarah; blessed above all nobility, wisdom or saintliness!" No, she was not filled with pride by this lofty, excellent and super-abundant praise ...' " [Weimar, 45: 105, 7 to 106, 1].

Source: Max Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church (London: The Faith Press, 1963), p.80.


Conclusion
There really shouldn't be a big deal made about this quote. Luther is describing Elizabeth's words. He isn't invoking prayer to Mary. Rome's defenders though look for anything that Luther says about Mary and pour their meaning into it- that Luther venerated and prayed to Mary. In the old CARM discussion that prompted this post, one of Rome's defenders stated,  "It seems quite clear that he was praying to Mary in the very quote itself, where he says 'No woman is like you.' He is speaking to her directly and that sounds like prayer to me." Certainly it was a supreme honor for Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Does this mean we worship or pray to Mary? No, this does not follow for Protestants, or either from this quote from Luther.

Here was a response from the Roman Catholic who was about to go to the library with his quest for a context:

"Is that saying that Luther was elaborating on Elizabeth's quote as Bonnie friend was saying it seemed to him? If that is the case then the site I took the quote from is either unaware or dishonest in pulling that quote out like that. Either way, good work finding the context. We all have been guilty of pulling quotes from the internet without context. However, It still seems to me Luther had more reverence from Mary than most NCCs do. He still believed she was the "Mother of God" as the context of the line you provided shows us."

[Revised 1/24/15. The links to the CARM discussion no longer work, so were removed. However, the content remains the same: Roman Catholics often quote Luther about Mary, but never bother to actually look the quotes up.]

Bibliographic Tedium on the Reformers and Perpetual Virginity

Over on the CARM boards there have been a few threads specific to the Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin on Mary’s perpetual virginity. For instance, a person called Opus Dei” submits the following:

After hearing so many people talk about Protestantism, I've come to a conclusion. Martin Luther would call many of these denominations heretical institutions. I think he would even be disgusted at some of these obvious flaws in theology. Calvin might even be upset. The basis for my conclusion is that all of the main three reformers, Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther all supported the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, how many protestants uphold this?” [source]

And the proof:

Luther: "It is an article of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin." Works of Luther, Vol. II, 319-320 Volume 6, 510

Calvin: "There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what a folly this is!Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, Published 1562

Zwingli: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure virgin brought forth for us the sone of God and in childbirth and after childbirth, forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.Zwingli Opera, Volume I, 424 [source]

Leaving aside the main argument for another day (for it is a flawed argument- as if it actually matters what the Reformers thought about Mary's perpetual virginity!), I’d like to explore the proof offered. For the Luther quote, the bibliographic citation given is “Works of Luther, Vol. II, 319-320 Volume 6, 510.” This reference to neither of the English editions Luther’s Works (The earlier Philadelphia edition, or the standard 55 volume Concordia set).

Others in cyber space reference the quote as “Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510”. Weimar is the German translation- Pelikan had nothing to do with it. So, in this reference, the German and English translations are cited together, combined to give a big inaccurate reference. This site documents it, “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. (Weimarer Ausgabe 11:319-320)”. That last one may actually be accurate.

Now the Zwingli reference is given as “Zwingli Opera, Volume I, 424.” In my understanding, this is a reference to Zwingli’s works from a Latin set. In print? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

"Zwingli's works were first collected and published by his son-in-law, Rudolf Gwalter, and entitled: "Opera D. H. Zwingli vigilantissimi Tigurinae ecclesiae Antistitis, partim quidem ab ipso Latine conscripta, partim vero e vernaculo sermone in Latinum translata: omnia novissime recognita, et multis adiectis, quae hactenus visa non sunt" (4 fol. vols., Zurich, 1545; reprinted, 1581). The first complete edition was edited by Melchior Schuler and Johannes Schulthess (8 vols., Zurich, 1828-42). Volumes VII and VIII, containing Zwingli's correspondence, are especially important. A new edition of his complete works prepared by Emil Egli (d. 1908), George Finsler, and Walther Kohler is appearing in the "Corpus Reformatorum", LXXXVIII (Berlin, 1905); three volumes I, II, and VII, have already (1912) appeared. "

Normally when I interact with someone on this topic, the person quoting this stuff becomes silent when ask for a little more bibliographic information. I do so to find out if the person putting forth the information has actually read Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, or if the information is a cut-and-paste job taken from Catholic apologetic web sites. The person posting this stuff made some impressive claims:

“I didn't get them from a site, but from the actual material.”
“I didn't type all of any of their statements [sic]. Trust me that is the context. if you still don't agree, look up the material, I cited everything.”

So of course, I asked for some specifics:

I would like to take you up on looking up the actual material. Is the Luther reference to the earlier Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works, or the Concordia 55 volume edition of Luther's Works? Also, which Treatise is being cited? You should know, since you got the quote from the "actual material. Can you quote Zwingli on Mary's virginity and also supply a context? The key is the later request.

The answer given for the Luther quote:

“I'll have to dig it up, I got it in college and I'm currently in the process of moving, all of my books are boxed up, I'll let you know when I find them, I just wrote down the basic works cited for a paper I did for my church, for adult education on the faith.”

And the answer given for the Zwingli quote:

“Zwingli Opera, Volume 1 424."I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact virgin."I'd give you the rest of it but I'd have to dig it out of a box to do so, I'll look for it and get back to you, a couple others are waiting for it too.Note: Just to clearify [sic], I did not rip this from a website, I wrote an educational paper for an adult faith education class, and that was all I needed to put on the article, I'll look for the book after I move and unbox things. Should be in a couple of weeks or so."

It will be long couple of weeks. Now this takes guts, but then again, it’s the Internet, and anything goes. I strongly doubt I’ll get the bibliographic material I asked for. I only point out tedium like this to show that many times, people are putting forth information as if they’ve actually studied a subject, and made an informed decision. For most people though, it seems one makes a conclusion and then looks for information to support it. Such is the normal folly of the defenders of Rome.

Martin Luther and Mary's Assumption

Here’s another one of those “Martin Luther was devoted to Mary” quotes. This time, Luther is said to believe in Mary’s assumption. Here’s the setup:

The Protestant Reformers on Mary
“When Fundamentalists study the writings of the "Reformers" (or founders of their particular sect) on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the "Reformers" accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

After going through perpetual Virginity, and the Immaculate conception, etc, we come to:

Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."[Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268].

Source: The Protestant Reformers on Mary (see also the widespread Internet use of this quote).

First, begin with the documentation: William J. Cole did not have anything to do with the Weimar edition of Luther's Works. He was a Roman Catholic scholar who wrote an article on Luther's Mariology many years ago. So, whoever put this webpage together never actually read this quote in an authentic context. The quote is originally from WA 10(3), 268,13 to 269. The translation utilized is from Cole's old article from 1970, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" [Marian Studies XXI].

The quote is from Luther's sermon of August 15, 1522. Cole mentions it was the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, which should tip us all off on where Luther was heading with his "Mariology" (recall, Luther lived till 1546, thus this comment comes very early in his "Reformation."). Cole quotes Luther as saying,

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith."

Now, one could say here that Luther leaves the door open for Mary's assumption. Perhaps he did in 1522. Cole doesn't give us enough of a context to know what Luther was talking about. Interesting though is the sentence, “And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith”. Here we find Luther living up to “Sola Scriptura.” One is not believe in the Assumption. It is not to be an article of faith.

In Luther's later writings on Genesis towards the end of his career though, he discusses how the Scriptures do not record the death of many Biblical women, including Mary. Luther is discussing how the Bible details the death and burial of Sarah:

“Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God."

Interestingly, Cole goes on to point out that Luther "used strong language....for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the 'hypocritical church',” particularly in celebrating a feast for it. Cole cites Luther as saying in 1544:

“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things.”

In fairness to the work of William Cole, Cole doesn’t take a stance one way or the other if Luther ever held to the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption. He simply says that for Luther the Assumption was of “little importance…” and Luther never explicitly “denied” it either. I disagree with Cole based on the quote from Luther’s later commentary on Genesis. It is simply the case that people in the Bible died. Scripture doesn't tell us how many of them died. On Roman Catholic logic, one might as well suggest all the biblical characters that did not have their deaths mentioned were assumed into Heaven...or, one can simply cease and desist from sophistry.