Revisiting Luther on the Assumption of Mary

To the left: Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin which has been erroneously said to adorn Luther's burial vault.

I recently came across of one Rome's defenders pointing out that Luther preached a sermon on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary in 1522. This person was enamored with Luther's opening comment,

"Today the festival of our dear Lady, the Mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above..."

The quote was said to demonstrate "Luther praises and celebrates a Marian feast" and that "Fr. Luther’s sermon...demonstrate[s] the Assumption was not only part of the regula fidei, but even one of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions himself also held this belief." There you have it: clear proof Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary and celebrated it! This quote comes from the same context this popular Luther statement about the Assumption comes from :

"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." -Martin Luther (Sermon, Feast of the Assumption of Mary, 1522)

As is typical of many of Rome's defenders, they read history with Mary-glasses on. We'll see below Luther's view of the Assumption is not  as it is being portrayed, either in context, or throughout the majority of his career as a Reformer.

Documentation
The quotes cited are authentic. They can be found in WA 10 (3), 268. The entire English context of this sermon is now available online, thanks to Joel Basely's fresh translation of Luther's Kirchenpostille in The  Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 144-151. Baseley explains in his introduction to these sermons,

Luther's goal in issuing the festival sermons was to wean his people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints which had crept into the church in order to lead them back to venerate Christ alone and to serve not the dead but the living saints in need, according to Christ's command (Baseley, introduction).

Now if you've gotten this far in this entry, you've probably noticed the dissonance. Luther is cited above saying "Today the festival of our dear Lady, the Mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above...," and "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven," but Baseley, the translator says this sermon was intended to move people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints. What's going on? Well, keep your eye on the ball. Rome's defenders are doing a bit of textual sleight of hand.

Context
The sermon indeed does begin with some comments from Luther on the Assumption of Mary. Below is the entirety of his 1522 introductory remarks in regard to this feast day. It amounts to a mere three paragraphs so he could get Mary out of the way and to then move on to preach a sermon that has nothing to do with Mary. In other words, the introduction serves as an explanation as to why he will not be preaching on the Assumption of Mary on August 15, 1522!

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

These passages sufficiently prove that they live. But we should not try to figure out what their life is like up there for it is not necessary for us to know. It is also not necessary to discover it. Reason is incapable of it. Some great masters have understanding about some things and yet not about this. For there are three states of life. First, as a child lays in his crib he lives in God but hardly perceives it Second, when we sleep we also are alive and are scarcely aware of it. Thirdly, when we definitely are aware and experience that we are living, even then we don't know how.

Now since here on earth God deals with us in this meager prison (that is barely half a life), in such a way that we barely perceive how we live here, how much more can He give life in heaven where it is spacious and where is true life. So we cannot set up any definite limits or establish a rule as to how the saints live there since even here dreaming and crazy people live, but we can't imagine how. It is enough to know that they live. But it is not necessary for us to know what that life is like. That is why I have always said that our faith always must rest upon what is known. We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures, else we would daily make up new articles of faith. For this reason, those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else. For faith must not build itself upon what Scripture does not clearly prove. So since the Scripture clearly says here that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all believers live, then it is necessary for you to believe that the mother of God lives. You can leave it in our gracious God's hands what that life is like. Enough said about this festival. We will say something about the Gospel [Festival Sermons of MartinLuther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 145-146].

Scholarship on These 1522 Quotes
A careful reader will notice nowhere in this context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, nor does he admit he's celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. He's simply mentioning the liturgical day, and that the"Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven."  "It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God." "We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures." "Those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else." There is no Luther-an affirmation of the Assumption here. This though has not stopped some of Rome's scholars from saying this sermon serves as proof that Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary. In his article, Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" William 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 interprets 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..." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), p. 123].

Or consider Thomas O'Meara's similar conclusion:

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 (WA 10, III 268) [Thomas O'Meara's Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966) p. 118].

Here's a fine example of two Roman Catholic scholars with Mary-glasses on, doing some textual sleight of hand. For these writers, Luther believed in Mary's miraculous Assumption into heaven but it was "of little importance" and he takes the belief "for granted." Oddly, Cole and O'Meara are probably being informed by Rome-friendly Protestant ecumenical sources (Thurian and Tappolet) for their conclusions. Cole explicitly says he's citing someone else's opinion, that of Max Thurian. Thurian stated,

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)

Contrary to Cole, Thurian never says Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. He says Luther made an assertion in 1522. William Cole appears to have read into what Thurian stated. For all of these scholars, the fundamental analysis is flawed: they basically posit that since Luther didn't deny Mary's Assumption in this sermon, he must have believed in Mary's Assumption. Not denying something is not proof for believing something.  Remember:

...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.

In an ecumenical dialog even the Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch made the passing remark that "Luther affirmed Mary's Assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of any benefit to others or accomplished in any special way" [H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 241] Gritsch's main proof? This 1522 sermon.Keep your eye on the ball again. Notice how careful Gritsch is: Luther is said to affirm Mary's Assumption into heaven but it was not "accomplished in any special way." In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be "Assumed" into heaven. What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, for being Assumed into heaven by its very nature is a special way of arriving in heaven!

Rome's Cyber-Defenders
Many years ago now these irresponsible conclusions from Cole and O'Meara were taken by Rome's cyber-apologists and plastered all over the Internet. One need only search the phrase, "There can be no doubt that the virgin Mary is in heaven." Here's a few examples:

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 [link].

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. (Sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption) [link].

You might also keep in mind that Martin Luther himself endorsed this doctrine four centuries before it was authoritatively defined, writing that, "There can be no doubt that the virgin Mary is in heaven, how it happened, we do not know" (Luther, Works, X:268). [link].

As far as the assumption goes, he did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it. William J. Cole "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123 [link].

Why would these pop-apologists be so interested in Luther believing in Mary's Assumption? From how I've encountered these people, the motivation seems to be to cause dissonance in the minds of non-Roman Catholics. There are at least two arguments going on. First,  Luther believed in sola scriptura, but look: he also adheres to our Mariology. If one really wanted to be a true Protestant, stop projecting current Protestant attitudes about Mary back on to the founder of Protestantism! Second, Roman Catholics are typically fairly critical of Martin Luther. But when it comes to the topic of Mary, Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.

Other Statements From Luther on the Assumption of Mary
William Cole goes on to document some of Luther's other comments on the Assumption of Mary, and based on how the Luther quotes this entry began with were treated, these other quotes deserve a fresh look as well. Cole states,

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," [WA 30 (2), 351] 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].

This reference from Cole is found in LW 34: 54, 57. Yes, "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin"  is listed, and Luther describes it as "The things which have been practice and custom in the pretended church." Cole is correct, it is listed along side of other feast days, indicating Luther probably had at least the Assumption feast day in view. Interestingly, Luther does though also include, "Mary made a common idol with countless services, celebrations, fasts, hymns, and antiphons" as also stemming from the hypocritical church. I would agree, the quote from Luther here is ambiguous.  But, why is the Feast day of the Assumption of Mary an aspect of the hypocritical church? Luther goes on to explain that the articles he negatively listed were considered necessary articles of faith by the church when in reality they are not. Contrarily, they "seriously storm against and corrupt the Christian faith and the truly necessary things" [LW 34:59].

William Cole then presents another quote on Luther and the Assumption:

Even what Tappolet considers "the most important place" a sermon on the Feast of the Visitation 1544, is capable of this benign interpretation: 

“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” (WA 52, 681) [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 124].

Cole makes a historical error. This sermon was not from 1544, It was preached in 1532 (see WA 52, XXIV). The reason for the 1544 date is Tappolet utilized Veit Dietrich's Hauspostille of 1544. Eric Gritsch actually places the preaching of this sermon in 1522, on the same day and month as the sermon this entry began with (The One Mediator, p. 241), but this is an error. The heading of the sermon indicates it was a sermon on the Visitation, "held according to the ordinances of Brandenburg and Nuremburg on the day of Mary's Ascension." In terms of historical context, Luther's comments in the sermon come around two years after the previous statement. The sermon states,

The feast of the ascension of Mary is completely papist, that is, full of blasphemy and established without any grounding in Scripture. For that reason we have let it lapse in our churches and have used the day to preach about how Mary went over the mountain to visit her relative Elizabeth and what happened there. In the first place there is no sign in Scripture of the feast of the ascension of Mary so that the papists themselves just use a saying from Jerome, who is supposed to have said: "I do not know whether she ascended into heaven in her body or out of her body." And how is anyone supposed to know this when there is nothing in Scripture about it? The most annoying and dangerous thing about making this ascension into a feast is that people honor the Virgin Mary and call to her, as they sing in the response: "O you pure Mother of God, we ask that you, because you were taken up to heaven, be gracious to us and make us citizens in heaven."

But we Christians do not know of any ascension that we can enjoy except for that of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, who ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, and intercedes for us. For that reason we can console ourselves in his Ascension and know that we will enjoy this, that we will also come to heaven and shall be heard here on earth by him in everything we ask for in his name. for that reason it is a wonderful, exalted and comforting feast, the Ascension of Christ, that the Virgin Mary enjoyed just as we do. We however, even if she has already gone to heaven, cannot enjoy her ascension, and should not for that reason call to her or to take comfort in her intercession as the pope teaches and through this shames and dishonors the Ascension of our Lord Christ, because he wants to make the mother equal to the son in everything. [Translation from Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks  Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 46-47]

Cole is correct that Luther's primary target is the Feast of the Assumption. This target though is closely tied to the lack of any Scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Luther goes on to describe a feast celebration that does have a scriptural pedigree, the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Contrary to such a damning context,  Cole concludes,

In summary, we can see that if the Feast is rejected, it is for reasons extraneous to the fact itself, which Luther never denied. essentially, as Luther himself said in the same sermon the reason he does not celebrate it, "although she has gone to heaven" is that he sees it is a source of justifying invocation to Mary.

Once again, we see here that Cole simply assumes what he's never proved, that Luther accepted the Assumption of Mary. Cole's "benign interpretation"is a malignant interpretation of the context. Luther says there's nothing in Scripture about it, and because of that, her ascension into heaven is not to be celebrated.

Not mentioned by William Cole is something from late in Luther's life. In Luther's later writings on Genesis towards the end of his career, 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." (LW 4:189-190)

While this isn't directly related about the Assumption of Mary, it does demonstrate Luther made attempts to remain consistent on Mary's end. Notice 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.

Luther and the elimination of the Feast of the Assumption
We should not take for granted that, as Cole states, Luther "used strong language" for the elimination of the Feast of the Assumption. Eric Gritsch similarly points out Luther went on to abandon the festival of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption:

“He rejected the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15.” [Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 240].

“According to Luther Mary should be honored in festivals that focus on Christ, which is why he eventually rejected the celebrations of her Immaculate Conception (December 8), her birth (September 8), and her Assumption (August 15). He did honor her in the festivals of the Annunciation (March 25), the Visitation (July 2), and Purification (February 2), since these are connected with the birth of Christ. "We dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born."[Ibid. 241]

“Luther continued to preach on these festivals, but stopped preaching on the other three festivals after 1523.”[Ibid. 382]

Addendum: Luther's Burial Vault Does Not Prove Belief in the Assumption of Mary
This is an argument that doesn't pop up as much anymore. Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea once said: "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." Peter Stravinskas likewise states,

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.

Sorry Gentleman. This sculpture is not on Luther's tomb, but rather: "the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church." See my previous entry here.