6 Beautiful Quotes on Mary You Won’t Believe Are From Martin Luther?

In a recent discussion, I was provided with a link to "6 Beautiful Quotes on Mary You Won’t Believe Are From Martin Luther,  given to demonstrate Luther "had a strong devotion to Mary and her intercessory role." The link is to a hip-looking Roman Catholic website, Church POP. The web-article was composed by "ChurchPOP Editor," which could be either one of two people (or perhaps someone else?) listed here.

Given the polemics against the Reformation from Rome's defenders, it's peculiar to find one contending something Luther said was "beautiful"!  Aren't Rome's apologists typically critical of  Luther? Not so when it comes to the topic of Mary; negative sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; the potentate all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling, particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach. Let's work through this link, and see if it proves Luther's "strong devotion" to Mary and her "intercessory role."

Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation and was critical of what he considered excesses and corruptions in the Catholic Church. But did you know he continued to hold many Catholic doctrines about Mary? Here are some quotes from Martin Luther about the Blessed Virgin Mary that may surprise you:

Yes, there are quotes about Mary from Luther peppered throughout his writings that may "surprise" a reader. I suspect the quotes would be most surprising to someone ignorant of church history, particularly those unaware of the ebb and flow of trends and traditions, both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It's true that the early Reformers, particularly Luther, made comments about Mary that current Protestants would not make. But similarly, there are comments made by Protestants today that would probably surprise Luther. This isn't, to use the cliché,  rocket science. The Marian climate of Luther's proto-Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape. When Luther broke with Rome, he was, in some regard, a transitional figure. To steal a concept from Alister McGrath: the Reformers demonstrated both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be at all surprising then to discover elements of Luther's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of Luther's understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview.

1) Mary has no equal among creation

“She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child….

“Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God…. None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.” (source)

The source provided is to a section of Wikipedia's article, Luther's Marian Theology. The reference given is "Luther's Works, 21:326, cf. 21:346." LW 21:326 is partially accurate. The first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph are from LW 21:326. The rest of the second paragraph, while technically from the same page, is actually an English translation taken from William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970), p.131. Someone appears to have morphed the two English translations together.  Why? Well, that's how Rome's defenders do things. "cf. 21:346" seems superfluous. The only relevant aspect on the page is the phrase "Mother of God," which appears a few times.

The actual quote is from Luther's comments on Luke 1:49, in which  Mary says, "For He who is mighty has done great things for me." Luther states,

The “great things” are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child. She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry: “They are great things,” impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, “Mother of God,” and perhaps for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise of Mary. Throughout his career, one finds Luther expressing the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation. Luther was to call her “Mother of God, exalted above all mortals” (LW 21:308) because she was given the great gift of being mother to the Messiah; that is the sense in which Mary is honored. Luther is not honoring her or "devoting" himself to her because of some intrinsic quality she had. In fact, the very next sentence of the quote states, "Mary also freely ascribes all to God's grace, not her merit." He refers to those "scribblers" who make "much ado about her worthiness," "for never in all her life did she think to become the Mother of God." Mary had a specific unique role in history, an honorable role. Luther was absolutely correct to direct his readers to "ponder" the incarnation. Does the quote prove Luther's "strong devotion" to Mary? Hardly. The quote proves Luther's strong devotion and awe of the incarnation and the role Mary played in this divine miracle.

2) Mary was without sin

“God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.” (source)

The source provided is to a section of Wikipedia's article, Luther's Marian Theology. Wikipedia cites a comment Luther allegedly made in 1544 from, "Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 61 vols., (Weimar: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nochfolger, 1883-1983), 52:39 [hereinafter: WA]." WA 52:39 can be found here. Wikipedia is in error on the 1544 date. The quote is from 1532. Luther's view at this point was  not that Mary was immaculately conceived, but that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood:

Adam and Eve were not born, but created. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and the woman of his rib. How much nearer is Christ to us than Eve to her husband Adam, since He is truly our flesh and blood. Such honor we should highly esteem and well take to heart, that the Son of God became flesh, and that there is no difference at all between His and our flesh, only that His flesh is without sin. For He was so conceived of the Holy Ghost, and God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus. Aside from this, in all other respects, He was like other men; He ate, drank, was hungry, thirsty, cold like other men. Such and similar natural infirmities, which have descended upon us by reason of sin, He, who was without sin, bore and had like unto us, as St. Paul says: " He was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man." [source]

It's true that earlier in his life Luther appears to acknowledge the immaculate conception of Mary. However, such acknowledgement cannot be meaningfully supported in his later writings.  For more on Luther's view of Mary's immaculate conception see, Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin, and also this link, which goes into greater detail of the quote Wikipedia and Church POP used.

3) Mary was a perpetual virgin

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ… was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.” (source; for more see this article)

Church Pop first cites a dead link. That link, when it was alive, was to "Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary." The second link provided is to another Church POP entry which cites the same quote with the same dead link for documentation.  Notice how awkward the quote is. Luther appears to be repeating himself. The reason why is the source used presented two different quotes which Church Pop stuck together to make one quote!  These two quotes are from LW 22 separated by 192 pages:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

In the first quote, in context, Luther is defending the true humanity of Jesus, and mentions, merely in passing, that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. There is no exposition on why he believed this. In the second quote, whoever put it together used severe editing, leaving out multiple sentences (see my entry here). What Rome's defenders typically won't tell you is that despite accepting Mary's perpetual virginity,  he didn't do it to show "strong devotion" to Mary. In fact, he called those fixated on her virginity "stupid idolaters" who "practically make a false deity of her" by extolling her perpetual virginity (LW 45:205-206). In Luther's thinking, he accepted the argument that "brothers" means "cousins," and that Scripture doesn't say if Mary had other children after the birth of Christ.  Luther simply assumes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why? This is a demonstration of what was mentioned previously:  the continuity Luther had with inherited theological tradition and the zeitgeist of his day.

4) On the veneration of Mary

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (source)

The source given is to another link entitled, Martin Luther (founder of the reform), speaks on Mary. This link is the result of years of cut-and-pastes of poorly documented Luther quotes that flooded the Internet years ago. This web-page documents the quote, "Sermon, September 1, 1522." This date is wrong, the sermon is from September 8, 1522. In context, Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the church of his day had collectively had gone far beyond it."The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" is not a positive statement, but a negative statement. This sentence placed back in its context is in regard to excessive Marian devotion, a devotion so rooted in the human heart that "no one wants to hear any opposition to this celebration" of the feast of Mary's birth. Luther goes on to wish this festival day in regard to Mary should be forgotten,  "For there is nothing in the Scriptures about it [Mary's birth]." For a complete examination of this quote, see my link here.  

5) Mary is the mother of all Christians

“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees… If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.” (source)

This source given is also to the second,  Martin Luther (founder of the reform), speaks on Mary. The documentation provided is "Sermon, Christmas, 1529." The date for the sermon is actually 1522, not 1529.  The contexts can be found in LW 52:15-16 and LW 75:216. In those context there's nothing shocking or focused on Mary. Luther's point is that "Christ is born for you and his birth is yours." His birth is given to his people spiritually: "In this manner Christ takes to himself our birth and absorbs it in his birth; he presents us with his birth so that we become pure and new in it, as if it were our own, so that every Christian might rejoice in this birth of Christ and glory in it no less than if he, too, like Christ, had been born bodily of Mary" (LW 52: 15). "This is the great joy, of which the angel speaks, this is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man (if he has this faith) may boast of such treasure as that Mary is his real mother, Christ his brother, and God his father" (LW 52:15).  "But see to it that you make his birth your own, and that you make an exchange with him, so that you rid yourself of your birth and receive, instead, his. This happens, if you have this faith. By this token you sit assuredly in the Virgin Mary’s lap and are her dear child. This faith you have to practice and to pray for as long as you live; you can never strengthen it enough. That is our foundation and our inheritance; on it the good works are to be built" (LW 52:16). Luther's emphasis is on the connection of the believer to Christ, not on Mary's spiritual maternity.

6) You can never honor Mary enough“

[Mary 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.” (source)

This source given is also to the second,  Martin Luther (founder of the reform), speaks on Mary  The documentation provided is "Sermon, Christmas, 1531." It's possible though, the sermon is from 1532 (see my entry here).  In the versions of this sermon I checked, I was unable to verify the phrases, "wisdom and holiness personified" and "injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." As with some of the other quotes above, whoever put this quote together used severe editing, leaving out multiple sentences. In context, notice the emphasis Luther puts on "praising" Mary. He says "we are to wean ourselves away from the mother":

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!

Conclusion

We see above that Church POP's "6 Beautiful Quotes" are simply a sloppy, poorly documented, poorly researched, sometimes out-of-context, cut-and-paste. This is typical of Rome's apologists when it comes to Luther's theology of Mary. One of my favorite examples of Rome's use of Luther is those who claim Luther praised Mary and said she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg. The context though says the exact opposite! Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Christ through Mary do so by the use of “reason,” and “reason is by nature a harmful whore.

How does one make sense of Luther's positive and negative comments about Mary and Marian devotion? Some of Rome's defenders harmonize Luther's confusing view by arguing he wasn't against Marian devotion and veneration, he was against the excesses and abuses of Marian devotion and veneration. Yes, there were serious problems with Marian theology in the 16th Century, and these problems helped fuel the Reformation. Luther certainly was reacting to the popular and accepted Marian piety of his day. But, one cannot appeal to the latest version of "proper" Roman Catholic Marian piety (whatever that is) and apply it as the doctrinal standard to a situation which existed hundreds of years ago. I've argued elsewhere that the entire 16th century Roman church had a generally accepted Marian piety which included both laymen and the theologically educated.  When Luther spoke against Marian devotion and veneration, he was speaking against the typical and accepted Marian piety of his day. 

Rome distinguishes between kinds of worship. Mary can receive the highest form of worship/veneration, hyperdulia, short of the worship of God. This type of worship is expressed in prayers, songs, ceremonies and pilgrimages. Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyper-dulia. When commenting on Deuteronomy 6:13, Luther referred to those who created the distinction as "sophists" (LW 9:71), calling the distinction useless.  If you search out Luther's use of the word “veneration,” you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term. In Roman Catholicism, veneration is symbiotically linked to mediation. In Luther's theology, having any other mediator besides Christ is idolatry. 

The crucial questions that need to be asked are: what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to or venerate Mary? Saying nice things about Mary is not "devotion." It is not praying to Mary and asking for her intercession. What does it mean for Luther to "venerate" Mary? Saying nice things about Mary is not "veneration" in the Roman Catholic sense. Did Luther bow before image of Mary? Did Luther go on pilgrimages in the name of Mary?

One should challenge Rome's apologists to define their terms. They should to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther (or whomever) saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion and veneration. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion,” they mean something quite different than Luther.

In fairness to Rome, Protestants have often swung to the opposite extreme, barely considering the special role of Mary in God's redemptive purpose. Whatever you do, don't say anything too positive about Mary, or you'll be looked at with a suspicious eye! Perhaps this to avoid the appearance of Roman Catholicism. Perhaps. Perhaps its because there is not a great deal of information about Mary in the Scriptures. For what it's worth:  I think it is quite appropriate to speak favorably about the heroes of the faith, be they Mary, Paul, Peter, Noah, Moses, etc. Protestants, generally speaking, don't have any problem every October honoring the memory of Martin Luther. How much more appropriate then, to remember and honor the memory of the person who gave birth to the savior of the world?