Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary"

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the pro-Mariology of the Reformers. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary."  It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. 

"The Protestant Reformers on Mary" webpage is set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!

This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in versions of The Protestant Reformers on Mary:

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]

This quote appears to be direct proof Zwingli used the phrase "Mother of God" and believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception. We'll give it to the defenders of Rome that Zwingli did indeed use the phrase, "Mother of God." That phrase was so ingrained in medieval culture, it would be more surprising if this early reformer did not use it. We'll also give it to Rome's defenders that Zwingli said nice things about Mary, like "esteem immensely." As to Zwingli adhering to the Immaculate Conception, it's not entirely certain if he actually held to it, despite such seemingly blatant quotes. Rome's online defenders never mention this. In fact, the very source they claim to have taken this quote from (Stakemeier) says on the same page, "It is difficult to prove that Zwingli directly affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin." The tertiary source they probably used for this quote also says, "On Z.'s attitude to the Immaculate Conception... of Mary there is no lengthy evidence."

Well see that whichever defender of Rome originally placed this quote online botched the documentation by using the wrong page number. This might sound like tedious nitpicking, but I'm not aware of any of Rome's defenders ever looking this quote up, putting it in a context (i.e. going "deep into history" as they claim) or having any knowledge of the source they're quoting... So, for at least two decades, the wrong online documentation has been provided, seemingly unchecked by Rome's propagandists. 

Here's what won't be in this blog entry: this entry is not an argument that Ulrich Zwingli completely rejected Mariology like many modern Protestants do (via arguments derived from the application of sola scriptura). Many of Zwingli's views on Mary reflect medieval Roman Catholicism. Zwingli was a transitional figure. One of his primary areas of concern was weening people away from excessive Mariolatry, particularly the intercession of Mary and the Saints. If he did accept the Immaculate Conception and later Protestantism denied it, that's an indication of how deeply rooted Mariolatry was in the early sixteenth century: even some of the most important reforming minds were infected by it. They were steeped in a tradition that wasn't easily peeled off by scriptural scrutiny.  

Zwingli, like Martin Luther, vehemently opposed a sine quo non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession. Rome's defenders seem to treat this denial like it's no big deal. However, all the distinctive Roman Catholic Marian attributes (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are symbiotically related to her ability to intercede. Take away Mary's ability to intercede, whatever is left really becomes a curiosity of history rather than something profoundly important.   Zwingli's Mariology, however "Roman Catholic" it may sound at times, is such a curiosity of history. Even if he affirmed Mary's Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc., it's like having Confederate money after the American Civil War. It doesn't mean anything significant.

Documentation: The Secondary and Tertiary Sources

What many do not realize is that twenty-five or so years ago, Rome's defenders flooded the Internet with-rage-bait-like quotes like this, intended to cause cognitive dissonance. Documentation could be vague and spurious... not necessarily wrong but not clear enough to be meaningful. This is one of those quotes.

This quote in this form has been around for decades, usually cut-and-pasted by Rome's defenders. I suspect none of them know anything about the documentation.  The quote is now immortalized on Wikipedia (unless someone un-imortalizes it!)... but at least someone via Wiki was savvy enough to include "citation needed." Kudos to whichever anonymous editor recognized propaganda. 

The usual online documentation provided is to a Roman Catholic secondary source (Stakemeier)... but upon analysis, I'll prove it was probably taken from a Roman Catholic tertiary source! Yep, that's going deep into history (read: sarcasm). The secondary source (Stakemeier) wasn't in English, so the tertiary source provided the English translation of Zwingli's remark.  It's impossible to know with precise certainty what the tertiary source is, but I strongly (if not... almost certainly!) suspect the English version of this quote originated from the 1982 Roman Catholic book by Michael O'Carroll:  Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 378. Note the similarities in the text:

The popular online propaganda documentation version may be a combination of "De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, ed. K. Balic, O.F.M., Rome, 1962" from page ix and "5 Stakemeier, op.cit., p. 455, 6 Ibid., p. 456" from page 378. This is probably the result of one of Rome's defenders copying the quote out of this book way way back in the early days of the Internet but not having the ability (or desire) to locate the primary or secondary sources for Zwingli's statement.     

As of the writing of this entry, Stakemeier,'s De Mariologia et Oecumenismo does not appear to be available online... so I purchased it. De Mariologia et Oecumenismo is a collection of articles from multiple twentieth century authors written in Latin. The chapter by Stakemeier is entitled, De Beata Maria Virgine Eiusque Cultu Iuxta Reformatores. The author was Roman Catholic theologian Rev. Dom. Eduardus Stakemeier. The underlying gist of the article is ecumenical. In fact, the article ends with a positive shout out to Vatican II. One of the goals of the author is to demonstrate similarities between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism so as to reach out to them in a friendly ecumenical way. 

One thing becomes blatantly obvious when the text above from Michael O'Carroll is compared with the text from Stakemeier: all the Zwingli information used comes directly from Stakemeier.  O'Carroll reused Stakemeier's Zwingli quotes, translating them into English and citing him as the source. One also immediately sees that the popular online version of The Protestant Reformers on Mary contains a documentation error. The popular version says it's found on page 456. It isn't. It's on page 455. This means for at least two decades, Rome's defenders repeatedly using this quote never bothered to check the reference! Whoever copied it originally botched it. 

Another interesting anomaly is that both O'Carroll and Stakemeier present one quote of contrary evidence that Zwingli denied Mary's Immaculate Conception: 

O'Carroll: In a debate in Zurich in 1523 he said: “It was publicly decreed in the Council of Basle that the Mother of God was conceived without original sin, nevertheless no monk is so inept and stupid that he would not dare to contradict it publicly."

Stakemeier: In the first Zurich disputation, on January 29, 1523, he declares: "In the Council of Basel it was publicly decreed that the Mother of God was conceived without original sin, yet no monk is so inept and foolish that he would not dare to publicly contradict it."

Both Roman Catholic authors defuse this sole contrary quote by attributing it to Zwingli's denial of the Council of Basel, not the Immaculate Conception. However, some scholars see this statement from Zwingli as an example of internal bias / partisanship meant to safeguard one of Zwingli's close followers from the Bishop of Constance (Federer, Zwingli und die Marienverehrung, 25). The same scholar also notes that it's difficult to explain Zwingli's purported acceptance of Mary's lifelong sinlessness with his explicit exposition of original sin (26). Regardless, that Rome's defenders leave out anything contrary to their Marian beliefs demonstrates their propaganda subterfuge.

Documentation: The Primary Source

Here is the text in question, found on page 455 of my 1962 edition (not 456 as their propaganda claims) from  Stakemeier,'s De Mariologia et Oecumenismo:

The missing key to this puzzle created by The Protestant Reformers on Mary is to discover which primary source Stakemeier took this quote from. Here is his documentation: 

(172) CR, Zwinglii Opera, 2, 189: opus articulorum sive conclusionum, art. 20.

"CR" stands for "Corpus Reformatorum." This is a largest collection of writings from some of the popular sixteenth century Reformers.  "Opera 2, 189" can be found here. It refers to one of the volumes containing Ulrich Zwingli's writings. 

Context

Here is the relevant text, with the quote being part of the last sentence: "Also halt ich viel von der Mutter Gottes , der ewig reinen unbefleckten Magd Maria, viel von allen denen , die um Gottes Ehr und Willen sind gestorben; ob aber sy got für nich bittind, das wellend wir hernach sehen."

This text comes from Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles. These 67 Articles were presented as a public disputation January 27, 1523. This explanatory text (according to Stakemeier) was presented July 14, 1523 (half a year later). The text in question is in regard to Article 20: "That God desires to give us all things in his name, whence it follows that outside of this life we need no mediator except himself." Why is Zwingli mentioning Mary's sinlessness? Is he expounding on it? No, he's making a passing comment while involved in a different argument: intercession. The entire sentence reads, 

"So I have great respect for the Mother of God, the eternally pure, immaculate Virgin Mary, and great respect for all those who died for God's honor and will; but whether they intercede with God for me, we shall see later." 

By "later" Zwingli will strongly argue against the intercession of the saints and Mary. That's the intent of this sentence when placed back in context. Think of the shock value of what going here in 1523: Zwingli is going to argue against the societally ingrained tradition of Mary's intercession. It is completely logical to place this denial with the positive disclaimer "Also halt ich vil von der müter gottes , der ewig reien, unbefleckten magt Maria."

Conclusion
It's not at all clear to me from this context if Zwingli was giving a passing affirmation to the Immaculate Conception or if he was using the popular Marian speech of his day. I say this because he was not exegeting his position on Mary in the primary source. He was involved in a much different discussion: saint mediators that intercede other than Jesus Christ (which he strongly denies). Rome's defenders never mention this. This extreme difference in his Mariology was not included in The Protestant Reformers on Mary. Why? Because it does not serve their propaganda campaign. Zwingli, like Martin Luther, vehemently opposed a sine quo non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession. Rome's defenders seem to treat this denial like it's no big deal. However, all the distinctive Roman Catholic Marian attributes (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are symbiotically related to her ability to intercede, both in the sixteenth century and now. Take away Mary's ability to intercede, whatever is left becomes a curiosity of history rather than something profoundly meaningful, ecumenical, or something proven using sola scriptura by the early reformers.  

It's true the early sixteenth century reformers did have views on Mary that sometimes do not coincide with Protestants today. This isn't rocket science. The Marian climate of Zwingli's proto-Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape, or even that which came after the first generation of Reformers. When Zwingli broke with Rome, he was, like Luther, 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 Zwingli's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of Zwingli's understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview, like Mary's intercession.

Some scholars deny Zwingli adhered to Mary's Immaculate Conception, despite his use of such flowery Marian language. See my blog entry here about some of those authors claiming Zwingli denied the Immaculate Conception. Rome's online defenders do not appear to be interested in any such research that contradicts their propaganda. I've not come across any of them digging deep into this history and refuting it.  Even on the very page the quote comes from found in Stakemeier, it states: "It is difficult to prove that Zwingli directly affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin." This sentence was purposely left out by whichever defender of Rome pulled this Zwingli quote out originally. True, Stakemeier does then go on to mention a small handful of Zwingli quotes that seem to indicate he adhered to the Immaculate Conception, but he never presents a definite positive answer. The best he arrives at is that the pro-Immaculate Conception Zwingli quotes "seem" to prove it. Why is this? Because as far as I can tell, Zwingli does not seem to have ever expound on Mary's Immaculate Conception.