Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #9

 

This is a Martin Luther meme typically posted by Rome's defenders. I've noticed that out of all the Roman Catholic "Luther" memes circulating, there seems to be a majority expressing something about Martin Luther's view of Mary. Weird. 

How to Respond:

1. Begin with the provided documentation, "Martin Luther Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521." If you search Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, you will not find this exact quote in this form. The quote is actually a truncated English version from an article entitled, "Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" by Roman Catholic scholar William Cole. See my detailed explanation here. 

2. Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was originally viewed as an attack on popular sixteenth century Mariology by Rome's sixteenth century defenders. See my detailed examination here.  Times have changed... now Rome's defenders use it to promote their current understanding of Mariology.

3. Did Luther "honor" Mary. Yes... but what is meant by "honor"? Roman Catholic apologists need to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian "honor" is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion / honor. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium.  Then, apply that official statement to Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion”, they mean something quite different than Protestants. In fact, in Luther's exposition of the Magnificat he says, "Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says..." (LW 21:322). And also, "all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her..." (LW 21:322).

4. Was Luther invoking Mary as an intercessor when he writes, "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God"? No! In context Luther is exhorting people to consider themselves low and humble and in awe of God's grace, like Mary:

Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceedingly abundant grace of God, who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What do you suppose would please her more than to have you come through her to God this way, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.

Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired anything of high degree. But the masters who so depict and portray the blessed Virgin that there is found in her nothing to be despised, but only great and lofty things—what are they doing but contrasting us with her instead of her with God? Thus they make us timid and afraid and hide the Virgin’s comfortable picture, as the images are covered over in Lent. For they deprive us of her example, from which we might take comfort; they make an exception of her and set her above all examples. But she should be, and herself gladly would be, the foremost example of the grace of God, to incite all the world to trust in this grace and to love and praise it, so that through her the hearts of all men should be filled with such knowledge of God that they might confidently say: “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example.” (LW 21:322-323).

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #6: The Protestant Dilemma, Luther and Mary's Sinlessness

 Here's a Martin Luther meme found on Facebook:

How to respond:

1. Identify the argument: This is a typical Roman Catholic argument that if Martin Luther restored "Biblical Christianity" to its pure state, then all subsequent Protestants are obligated to follow everything he said in regard to Christianity. They argue that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, so this is contrary to modern Protestants that believe "all have sinned" including Mary. 

2. Locate the source: No source is given in the meme for the Martin Luther quote.  For this quote, Rome's defenders often cite either Luther's "Personal Prayer Book" or "Little Prayer Book" 1522.  This is old-school Roman Catholic Internet documentation that's vague enough to not be helpful. This text is easy enough to find: it has been translated into English in LW 43:40.

3. Present More Clarifying Information. At times Martin Luther's view of Mary was in flux, and this quote is a good example of it. Leading up to 1522, it can be documented that Luther wavered on making a definite conclusion on Mary's sinlessness. In 1521-1522, he seems to have finally concluded Mary was sinless. After this, his position changed. The best one can speculate is that for the majority of his career as a Reformer, he believed that at the conception of Jesus Christ, Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit. At Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. This means that at least up until the conception of Christ, Luther believed that Mary was not sinless. His mature position is not the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus). After Mary's conception of Christ, Luther places Mary among sinners (documented below). 

A question arises for Luther's later view: If Mary was purified or made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did she then go on to live a completely sinless life? Here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus:

This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding  and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202).

Original text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26). 

Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204).

Original text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).

You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206).

Original text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30). 

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. For further discussion, see this link. 

Roman Catholic Obfuscation: Martin Luther Believed in Mary's "Immaculate Purification"

A Roman Catholic explained to me recently that Martin Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception was better explained as an immaculate purification. This person provided this term as if it was an accepted scholarly usage and Luther was somehow still on the Roman Catholic side on Mary's sinlessness.

Immaculate purification isn't a scholarly term, and Martin Luther is not on the Roman Catholic side regarding Mary and her alleged sinlessness. At least two false obfuscations are committed by Romes's defenders using the term immaculate purification to describe Luther's view. 

The first obfuscation: Cursory Google searches indiscriminately explain Luther's immaculate purification view:  he believed at the conception of Jesus, Mary was immaculately purified. There's a strong sense in which this is representative of Luther's view. I've made a similar point since at least 2003: Luther believed that at the conception of Jesus, the Holy Spirit sanctified / purified Mary so that the savior would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood (this purification / sanctification did not happen at Mary's birth, hence a denial of the Immaculate Conception).

But there's an obfuscation: I've yet to come across any meaningful historian, reputable scholar, or bonafide theologian describing Luther's view with the phrase immaculate purification. If there is one, I question their ability to do discriminating research. The phrase seems to have popped up online over the last ten to fifteen years or so, filtering down popularly to the masses, especially now through A.I. searches. Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception as immaculate purification appears to be the work of online Roman Catholic lay apologists.  One Roman Catholic lay apologist claims its origin: "I have coined a new term: Immaculate Purification..." to describe Luther's view. I do think it's within the realm of possibility that a lay apologist, either Roman Catholic or Protestant, can discover or create something otherwise unheard of, yet it troubles me that A.I. technology cannot distinguish between reputable scholarship and online polemics, influencers / personalities, and lay apologetics. A.I. needs to learn to distinguish levels of credibility. It's fine that A.I. provides lay research, but it should be upfront about it. Many people just grab information and don't bother to check the pedigree of what they're using.

The second obfuscation: The phrase immaculate purification leads to an important overlooked question in explaining Luther's mature view: if Mary was purified and made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did Luther think she then went on to live a completely sinless life? Is Luther saying that Mary was a sinner up until the conception of Jesus and then after his birth she lived sinlessly? The immaculate purification doesn't seem to address this problem. As a gift to Roman Catholic laymen from Beggars All to help them refine their immaculate purification theory, here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus. These are comments he made in a 1532 sermon on Luke 2:41-52:

This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding  and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202; WA 17.2:26).

German text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26). 

Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204; WA 17.2:28).

German text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).

You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206; WA 17.2:30).

German text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30). 

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. If these quotes authentically stand, Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. This can be further substantiated from Luther's 1535 comments on Galatians 5:19. He presents a fascinating overview on the depths of sin in relation to those popularly considered to be saints. Galatians 5:19 states, "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality..."  First, Luther includes quotes showing sin universally infected everyone, even those considered to be saints. Second, Luther includes Mary among the saints. 

There was never yet (as I have said already) any of the saints whom the flesh hath not often in his lifetime provoked to impatiency, anger, etc. Paul therefore speaking here of the saints, saith that the flesh lusteth in them against the Spirit, etc. (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1 p.331; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:100).

Latin text: Quia supra dixi, nullum fuisse unquam Sanctum, quem non saepius in vita solicitaverit Caro ad impacientiam, iram etc. Hinc Paulus de Sanctis hic loquens dicit, Carnem in ipsis concupiscere adversus Spiritum etc. (WA 40.2:100). 

Notwithstanding sometimes it happeneth that the saints also do fall and perform the desires of the flesh: as David fell horribly into adultery. Also he was the cause of the slaughter of many men, when he caused Uriah to be slain in the forefront of the battle: and thereby also he gave occasion to the enemies to glory and triumph over the people of God, to worship their idol, and to blaspheme the God of Israel. Peter also fell most grievously and horribly when he denied Christ. But although these sins were great and heinous, yet were they not committed upon any contempt of God or of a willful and obstinate mind, but through infirmity and weakness. Again, when they were admonished, they did not obstinately continue in their sins, but repented. Such he willeth afterwards in the sixth chapter to be received, instructed, and restored, saying: ‘If a man be fallen by occasion’ etc. To those therefore which sin and fall through infirmity, pardon is not denied, so that they rise again and continue not in their sin: for of all things continuance in sin is the worst. But if they repent not, but still obstinately continue in their wickedness and perform the desires of the flesh, it is a certain token that there is deceit in their spirit (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p. 331-332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).

Latin text: Imo quandoque etiam accidit, ut Sancti labantur et desideria ipsius carnis perficiant. Sicut David grandi et horribili lapsu cecidit in adulterium, Item autor fuit caedis multorum, dum volebat Uriam in acie perire. Qua re hostibus etiam occasionem dedit gloriandi contra populum Dei, adorandi idolum suum et blasphemandi Deum Israel. Lapsus est horribiliter et Petrus, cum negaret Christum. Sed quamlibet illa peccata grandia sint, tamen non data opera, sed ex infirmitate commissa sunt. Deinde admoniti non perseveraverunt obstinati in peccatis, sed resipuerunt etc. Tales infra Cap. 6. iubet recipi, instrui et instaurari, dicens: 'Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo' etc. Ideo qui ex infirmitate peccant, etiam saepius, illis non denegatur venia, modo rursum resurgant et in peccatis non perseverent, perseverantia autem pessima est etc. Si autem non resipiscunt, sed porro obstinati perficiunt desideria carnis, certissimum signum est, quod dolus sit in Spiritu ipsorum (WA 40.2:101).  

No man therefore shall be without [lusts and] desires so long as he liveth in the flesh, and therefore no man shall be free from temptations (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).

Latin text: Desideriis igitur nemo carebit, quousque in carne vivit, ideoque nemo liber erit a tentationibus (WA 40.2:101).  

Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam (WA 40.2:101-102). 

WHO BE RIGHTLY CALLED SAINTS, AND BE SO INDEED
This place (as I have also forewarned you by the way) containeth in it a singular consolation: for it teacheth us that the saints live not without concupiscence and temptations of the flesh, nor yet without sins. It warneth us therefore to take heed that we do not as some did, of whom Gerson writeth, which labored to attain [to such perfection], that they might be without all feeling of temptations or sins: that is to say, very stocks and stones. The like imagination the monks and schoolmen had of their saints, as though they had been very senseless blocks and without all affections. Assuredly Mary felt great grief and sorrow of heart when she missed her son (Luke 2). David in the Psalms complaineth that he is almost swallowed up with excessive sorrow for the greatness of his temptations and sins. Paul also complaineth that he hath battles without, and terrors within (2 Corinthians 7:5), and that in his flesh he serveth the law of sin. He saith that he is careful for all the churches (Corinthians 11:28), and that God showed great mercy towards him, in that he delivered Epaphroditus being at the point of death, to life again, lest he should have had sorrow upon sorrow (Philippians 2:27). Therefore the saints of the Papists are like to the Stoics, who imagined such wise men, as in the world were never yet to be found. And by this foolish and wicked persuasion, which proceedeth from the ignorance of this doctrine of Paul, the schoolmen brought both themselves and others without number into [horrible]desperation (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332-333; LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102-103).

Latin text: Et hic locus, ut etiam supra obiter monui, gravissimam consolationem nobis affert, quia admonet, quod sine concupiscentia et tentationibus carnis, imo etiam sine peccatis vivere non possimus. Admonet igitur nos, ne faciamus, ut quidam, de quibus Gerson scribit, qui eo nitebantur, ut prorsus nihil tentationum et peccatorum sentirent, hoc est, ut plane saxa essent. Talem imaginationem habuerunt Sophistae et Monachi de Sanctis, quasi fuerint meri stipites et trunci et plane caruerint omnibus affectibus. Certe Maria sensit maximum dolorem animi amisso filio, Luc. 2. Conqueritur David passim in Psalmis, se immodica tristicia propter magnitudinem tentationum et peccatorum suorum concepta pene absorberi. Conqueritur et Paulus se 'foris pugnas, intus pavores' sentire, Se 'carne servire legi peccati', Ait se 'solicitum esse pro omnibus Ecclesiis', Et 'Deum misertum esse sui, quod Epaphroditum vicinum morti restituerit vitae, ne dolorem super dolorem haberet'. Itaque Sophistarum Sancti similes sunt Sapientibus Stoicorum qui tales finxerunt sapientes, qualis nullus unquam fuit in rerum natura. Et hac stulta et impia persuasione, quae nata est ex inscitia huius Paulinae doctrinae, adegerunt Sophistae seipsos et alios infinitos ad desperationem.  (WA 40.2:102-103). 

Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam. sed hec scientia: non ambulare post ea; qui perfecit desideria, sciat se non Christianum. ideo consolatio doctrinae, quod impossibile nos non habere peccatum.

Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos homines, sed eum, qui abstineret a cibo, potu, tabula, in deserto. Is sanctus vir et mulier, qui baptisatus credit et abstinet propter Christum ab vitiis etc. Si curat domum, obsequitur viro, Ista salvatur per etc. Sic multae Sanctae mulieres, viri in hac carne, quia vivunt serio secundum Euangelium; quod interim offenditur a viro, sind desideria, commotiones; sed non ideo volunt nocere, impedire proximum; si etiam craus [graus] fert [fert] ein fluch, in remissionem peccatorum gehört et est lapsus. Et tales müssen wir heilige lassen, quia deus reputat salvos per remissionem peccatorum( WA 40.2:101-103).   

These English excerpts were taken from the Select Works of Martin Luther vol.1, p. 331-333. This was a popular English translation released in the nineteenth century by Henry Cole. Another English translation of this last quote can be found in LW 27:81,

As I have already indicated briefly, this passage provides us with the greatest possible comfort when it tells us that it is impossible to live without any desires and temptations of the flesh, in fact, without sin. It admonishes us not to act like the men of whom Gerson writes, who labored to rid themselves of any awareness of temptation or sin, in other words, to become nothing but stones. The sophists and monks had the notion about the saints that they were merely logs and blocks, utterly lacking in any feeling. Surely Mary felt a great sorrow in her mind when her Son was lost (Luke 2:48) (LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102).

Latin text: Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos (WA 40.2:102). 

Finally, in Christianity death is the result of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23; Jam. 1:15; 1 Cor. 15:56). In Luther's 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. He assumes Mary died:

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).

Latin text: Aliarum Patriarcharum ne mortem quidem annotavit scriptura: ut de Eva nihil meminit, quot annis vixerit, ubi mortua sit. Rachel scribitur laboribus partus extincta esse. Reliquas omnes praeterit et involvit silentio, adeo ut nec Mariae, matris Christi, mortem cognitam habeamus. Sola Sara hanc gloriam habet, quod annorum numerus certus, tempus mortis et locus sepulchri describitur. Magna igitur laus est, et certissimum argumentum fuisse eam preciosam in oculis Dei (WA 43:272).

Conclusion

To recap: there are two obfuscations Roman Catholics fall into when they describe Luther's view of Mary's sinlessness as immaculate purification. First, it's a term concocted by online pop-Roman Catholic apologists. It does not have a pedigree of scholarship behind it.  When A.I. indiscriminately offers it as correct information, it is seemingly not yet capable to distinguish between scholarship and online pop-apologetics. Second, the Roman Catholic version of Luther's immaculate purification view fails to address the question of whether or not Luther thought Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life. There are explicit statements from him in which he does classify Mary as a sinner after the birth of Jesus. According to Luther, Mary eventually died. Death is the result of sin.

If my goal was to eliminate readers of Beggars All, entries like this are certainly a means to that end! In the polemics between Roman Catholics and Protestants, this topic is like a fly buzzing around other theological issues. It does not have a strong degree of importance. Why then bother? Luther's view of Mary is frequently utilized by Roman Catholics. They argue that Luther believed in distinctly Roman Catholic Mariology, and so should you! It's a weird game of using an authority that the majority of Protestants don't adhere to or recognize. When the topic though is probed and scrutinized, it demonstrates Roman Catholics often use propaganda rather than going deep into history.   

Addendum #1 Luther said "The Virgin Mary has fallen into error"

Contrary to modern defenders of Roman Catholicism, their predecessors would not have utilized Luther's immaculate purification theory and would have agreed that he placed Mary among sinners.  

Tommaso Bozio (1548–1610) was an Italian Roman Catholic priest and Counter-Reformation historian. In 1591, he wrote a two-volume book entitled De signis ecclesiae Dei libri XXIV (24 Books about the Signs of the Church of God). He cites both Martin Luther and John Calvin negatively. In volume one, he documents that Luther Calvin and their followers are "impious" (impius Caluinus, ac Lutherus) in rejecting Papal authority and that by extension, they reject the authority of the saints, Church Councils, and the Apostles because these are capable of error, therefore sinning. He states,

Secundus gradus. Immo sancti omnes errarunt. iidem locis iisdem. quin ait spurcissimus Lutherus, sanctos istos, nisi ante mortem reducti sint, neque sanctos fuisse, neque ad Ecclesiam pertinere.

The second degree [of the error of the Reformers]. Nay rather, all the saints have erred. They [say this] in the same places. Indeed, the most filthy Luther says that those saints, unless they were brought back before death, were neither saints nor belonged to the Church (Google A.I. English translation).

Note the phrase "Spurcissimus Lutherus" (the most filthy Luther). He then contemptuously refers to the following statement from Martin Luther (turpissimus Lutherus), and it has a direct mention of Mary... that Luther taught she fell into error and faltered in faith: 

Quintus gradus. Ipsa virgo Maria lapsa est in errorem, quippe quae aliquando nutauerit in fide, aiunt turpissimus Lutherus cum suis, ille in postilla Euangelij Dominicae tertiae post Epiphaniam, & in Euangelio Centurionis. Centuriatores Centur.

The fifth stage. The Virgin Mary herself has fallen into error, in as much as she once faltered in faith, say the most filthy Luther with his [followers], in his postil on the Gospel for the third Sunday after Epiphany, and in the Gospel of the Centurion..(Google A.I. English translation).

The Luther texts this Roman Catholic priest is citing is the Gospel for the Third Sunday After Epiphany (Matthew 8:1-23. These verses in Matthew contain the account of the faith of the Centurion. Luther preached, 

So it should be understood that at the time He preached He did not find such faith either in His mother or in the apostles, whether or not He previously of afterward found great faith in His mother and the apostles and in many others. It may well be that He gave His mother great faith at the time she conceived and bore Him, and afterward not or rarely so great, and sometimes let [her faith] diminish, as He did when she lost Him for three days (Luke 2:46]), as He does with all His saints. If He did not do that, the saints would certainly fall into arrogance and make themselves into idols- or we would make idols out of them, and look more at their worthiness and person than at God's grace (LW 76:255-256).

German text:  Also soll auch hie verstanden werden, das er zur zeyt seyner predigt solchen glauben nicht funden habe widder ynn der mutter noch Aposteln, ob es gleich sey odder nicht sey, das er zuvor odder hernach grossern glauben funden habe ynn der mutter und Aposteln und viel andern. Denn es mag wol seyn, das er seyner mutter zur zeyt, da sie yhn empfieng und gebar, grossen glauben hab geben und dar nach nicht odder selten mehr so gros und zu weylen den selben hab lassen sincken. Wie er thet, da sie yhn drey tage verloren hatte, Luce 2., wie er auch mit allen seynen heyligen thut. Und wo ers nicht thet, sollten wol die heyligen fallen ynn vermessenheyt und sich zu abgotter machen, odder wyr worden abgotter dar aus machen und mehr auff yhre wirdickeyt und person sehen, denn auff Gottis gnaden (WA 17.2:77 ).

Another sixteenth century defender of Rome utilized the same passage against Luther. Peter Canisius (Dutch Jesuit priest and anti-Reformation polemicist) wrote in 1577 that Luther tried to obscure the faith of Mary and she lacked faith:

Quanta verò Lutheri est impudentia, quum hoc Euangelij loco MARIAE fidem obscurare conatur, adeoque in vniuersum definit, Christum prædicationis suæ tempore neque in Matre, neque in Apostolis tantam fidem, quantam in hoc vno Centurione, reperisse? Ac de MARIA quidem isthæc subiicit: Fieri potest, vt Matri suæ, dum se gestabat in vtero, & dum peperit, magnam fidem donarit, & postea nunquam, vel rarò tantam, imò etiam vt eius fidem identidem passus sit nutare: vti ei vsu venit, quando triduo ipsum amiserat. Verùm de hoc posteriore nos alibi viderimus, vt omnes intelligant, MARIAM cum amissum triduò filium quæreret, haudquaquam in fide vacillasse. Quod ad reliqua pertinet, omnium piorum consensus in eo conspirat, certóque confirmat, quòd MARIA non solùm gestans vterum, & partus sui tempore, vti concedit Lutherus, sed etiam post partum, ac in omni vita fidem integram perfectámque seruarit, in eáque fide tantò magis profecerit, quantò pluribus & maioribus confirmandæ fidei argumentis abundaret.

How shameless is Luther, when in this place of the Gospel he tries to obscure the faith of Mary, and thus concludes in general that Christ, in the time of his preaching, found neither in his Mother nor in the Apostles so much faith as in this one Centurion? And concerning Mary he subjoins these words: It is possible that he granted his Mother great faith while she was carrying him in her womb and while she was giving birth, and afterward never, or only rarely, so much faith, and indeed that he allowed her faith to waver from time to time, as happened when she had lost him for three days. But we will examine this latter point elsewhere, so that all may understand that Mary, when she was searching for her son who had been lost for three days, did not at all waver in her faith. As for the rest, the consensus of all the pious agrees on this, and confirms for certain that Mary, not only while carrying the womb and at the time of her childbirth, as Luther concedes, but also after the birth, and throughout her entire life, preserved a complete and perfect faith, and in that faith progressed all the more, as she abounded in more and greater arguments for the confirmation of her faith (DeepL English translation).

Addendum #2 Ineffabilis Deus, the Roman Catholic Dogmatic Decree on the Immaculate Conception of Mary vs. Luther
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church released its dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Ineffabilis Deus. This dogmatic pronouncement states,

 “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

There have been defenders of Rome claiming Luther's view of the Immaculate Conception was substantially the same as the 1854 dogmatic pronouncement. These Roman Catholics are in error as I demonstrated back in 2003. 

True, in Roman Catholic theology, this 1854 declaration of condemnation to those saying something different does not work backward. In a Roman Catholic system, Luther was free to hold the position he did on Mary and her relation to sin. He lived a long time before 1854! This was even Standard Operating Procedure in Luther's lifetime. He stated in 1518:

Second, even if the pope along with a large part of the church should feel thus and so, and even if it were true that he does not err, it is still not a sin, nor is it heresy, to take the opposite position, especially in something which is not necessary for salvation, until the one position has been rejected by a general council and the other approved. But, lest I become too involved, let me state that my position is proved in this one instance, namely, that the Roman church along with the general council at Basel and almost with the whole church feels that the Holy Virgin was conceived without sin. Yet those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics, since their opinion has not been disproved (LW 31:172-173; WA 1:583).

Latin text:  Secondo. Etiam si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret nec etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum aut haeresis, contrarium sentire, presertim in re non necessaria ad salutem, donec fuerit per Concilium universale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum. Quod, ne multis agam, illo unico probatur, quod Ecclesia Romana etiam cum Concilio universali Basiliensi ac tota ferme Ecclesia sentit, B. Virginem sine peccato conceptam Et tamen, quia altera pars non est reprobata, non sunt haeretici qui con trarium sapiunt (WA 1:583).

It's curious that any contemporary defender of Rome would positively put forth Martin Luther's view of immaculate purification in light of Ineffabilis Deus. It can certainly be treated as an oddity of their history from a Roman Catholic perspective. But, for a contemporary Roman Catholic layman to positively utilize Luthers view of Mary here seems to smack in the face of Ineffabilis Deus. Should Roman Catholics have the freedom to positively use Luther's immaculate purification view as somehow a defense of Roman Catholicism? To do so would be, as Ineffabilis Deus states, daring to think otherwise than what has been infallibly defined.   

Addendum #3 Magisterium A.I.

I hesitate to mention this.  Rome's defenders now have their own A.I.: Magisterium. Supposedly, it only utilizes official Roman Catholic documents and generally accepted sources like the old Catholic Encyclopedia. You know how A.I. is supposed to eliminate human jobs? Well.... look out professional Roman Catholic apologists! 

I asked Magisterium A.I. the following: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary never sinned? It replied: 

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary never sinned. This doctrine encompasses two key aspects affirmed in magisterial teaching: her preservation from original sin through the Immaculate Conception—a defined dogma—and her lifelong freedom from all personal sin (both mortal and venial) by a singular grace from God.

-snip-

Lifelong Freedom from Personal Sin

Beyond original sin, the Church teaches that Mary remained free from every personal sin throughout her life.

-snip-

Development of Doctrine: While the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, Mary's full sinlessness was taught earlier by the ordinary Magisterium and liturgy, with Trent explicitly exempting her.

-snip-

In summary, Catholic doctrine holds Mary as the sole exception among humans (after Christ) to be entirely sinless, redeemed preemptively and preserved perfectly—a flawless model of the Church's hope for holiness.

Spurious Martin Luther Quote: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin..."

 

This image above was pulled off Facebook. In the first quote, Luther supposedly said,  

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." -Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

If you're thinking, "that really doesn't sound like Luther," then kudos to you for your discernment skills! This was one of the first weird Roman Catholic Martin Luther quotes I investigated. It just didn't sound right. Eventually I compiled this entry documenting my journey with this quote. Since the quote still circulates online, here's what you need to know:

1. Where does the quote come from? The English version of this quote comes from an English translation of Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther, IV. Whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally cut-and-pasted it from the book to the Internet neglected to mention Grisar also states in the same context, 

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther's approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear. 

and also: 

As Luther's intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

2. Who deleted this quote? Martin Luther did or an editor he authorized.

3. Why did Martin Luther delete this quote? The sermon collection it appeared in was put together by Stephen Roth. Roth actually added in material not from Luther. Luther was highly displeased with what Roth put together and revised the material, releasing an updated version of this sermon collection. 

4. Did Martin Luther really write this quote? He probably did not. The editors of Luther's Works point out: 

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception... (LW 58:434-435, fn. 10).

I've not found anything in Luther's written corpus at all similar to this 1527 statement. It's like a Luther hapax legomenon!

Conclusion
It amazes me that this quote still circulates as Roman Catholic propaganda on the Internet. We've been given this incredible ability to have immediate information, yet, Roman Catholic propagandists don't do the basic work of a looking up a quote before splattering it all over the Internet. These are the same people that claim reading the church fathers will make one become Roman Catholic! 

Luther: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic web article that allegedly documents the Mariology of the early Protestant Reformers. The article is sometimes called, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included in this presentation:

Mary the Mother of God. Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."[Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107].

If you're puzzled as to why this quote is supposed to be shocking to Protestant eyes, it means you're probably not a garden variety fundamentalist that has theological spasms whenever you come upon the phrase Mother of God. Luther used this phrase occasionally but did not use it as a term of invocation or worship like Roman Catholics do. When he used it, it was either an expression of the common vernacular of the sixteenth century, a term of respect for her as someone profoundly used by God in a significant way, or it was primarily to say something about Jesus, not Mary. The context below will bear this out. 

Documentation

The origin of this quote may be from a 1992 Catholic Answers article by Father Mateo, CRI's Attack on Mary: Part 1. The article states, 

Throughout his life Luther used and defended Mary’s title “Mother of God” against all comers. “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”(Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 24, 107.) (I wonder about CRI’s consistent failure throughout to mention Protestant sources in praise of Mary.)

It's possible Father Mateo actually mined this quote out of Luther's writings himself. Or: someone took Mateo's words, changed them a little bit, adding Weimar to the documentation.

As is frequently the case with Roman Catholic propaganda, the documentation is spurious. Someone mixed together the English and German / Latin editions of Luther's writings. This quote isn't from WA 24 in the Weimar edition of Luther's writings, it's from volume 24 of the English edition of Luther's Works. The quote is found in WA 45:557-559. In English, it is found in Luther's Works, LW 24:106-107. The text is from Martin Luther's exposition of the Gospel of John 14:16.  

 

Context

We say of every human being that he eats, drinks, digests, sleeps, wakes, walks, stands, works, etc., although the soul participates in none of these activities, but only the body. And yet this is said of the entire person, who has a body and a soul. For it is one person, by reason not only of the body but of both the body and the soul. Again, we say that man thinks, deliberates, and learns. According to his reason or soul, he can become a teacher or master, a judge, councilor, or ruler. Neither the body nor any one of its members gives him this competence. And yet we say: “He has a clever head; he is sensible, learned, eloquent, artistic.” Thus it is said of a woman that a mother carries, bears, and suckles a child, although it is not her soul but only her body that makes her a mother. And still we ascribe this to the entire woman. Or if someone strikes a person on the head, we say: “He has struck Hans or Greta.” Or if a member of the body is injured or wounded, we think of the whole person as being wounded.

I am using these simple illustrations to demonstrate how two distinct natures must be differentiated in the Person of Christ and yet how this still leaves the Person a whole and undivided entity. Whatever Christ says and does, both God and man say and do; yet each word and action is in accord with the one or the other nature. He who observes this distinction is safe and on the right path. He will not be led astray by the erroneous ideas of heretics, ideas which come into being solely because they do not properly join what belongs together and is united, or because they do not properly separate and distinguish what must be distinguished.

Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life." (LW 24:106-107).

Original text: Denn also redet man von einem iglichen menschen: Der mensch isset und trincket, dewet¹, schlefft, wachet, gehet und stehet, arbeitet x., welches er be] doch nach der seele keines thut, sondern allein der leib. Und doch von der ganzen person, so leib und seel hat, gesagt wird. Denn er ist ein mensch nicht allein des leibs, sondern beide, des leibs und der seel halben. Widerumb sagt man auch von im: Der mensch dencket, tichtet, lernet. Denn nach der vernunfft oder seelen kan er werden ein Lerer oder Meister, Richter, Rat, Regent, welchs im der leib nach des leibs gliedmas keines gibt. Und dennoch spricht man: Das ist ein geschickter kopff, vernünfftig, gelert, weise, wol beredt, künstreich. Also sagt man von einem weibe: Die mutter tregt, gebirt oder seuget das kind. So sie doch nicht nach der seele, sondern allein nach dem leib eine mutter heisst. Doch gibt man solchs der ganzen weiblichen person. Item, wenn einer einen menschen für den kopff schlegt, so spricht [M. S. ij] man: Dieser hat Hansen oder Greta geschlagen. Also wenn ein glied verleget oder verwundet wird, so heisst es den ganzen menschen verwundet. 

Das sage ich zum groben Gleichnis, das mans verstehe, wie man inn der person Christi die zwo naturn unterschiedlich teilen und doch die person ganz und ungetrennet zusamen lassen mus. Das, was Christus redet und thut, das hat beide, Gott und mensch geredt und gethan, und doch ein iglichs nach der einen natur. Wer solch unterscheid helt, der kan sicher und recht faren, das er sich nicht lasse irre machen der Ketzer irrige gedancken, welche allein daher komen, das sie nicht recht zusamen fügen, was zusamen gehöret und eines ist, oder nicht recht von ander scheiden und teilen, was man unterscheiden sol.

Darumb sollen wir bey der Schrifft rede und wort bleiben und den Artikel also behalten und bekennen, das dieser Christus ist warhafftiger Gott, durch den alle ding geschaffen sind und bestehen. Und widerumb der selbige Christus, Gottes son, wird geborn von der jungfrawen und stirbt am Creutz x. Item: die mutter Maria tregt, gebirt, seuget und neeret nicht den menschen allein oder fleisch und blut, Denn das were die person getrennet, Sondern sie tregt und neeret einen son, der da ist Gottes son, Darumb heisßt sie recht nicht allein des menschen, sondern auch Gottes mutter. Wie auch die alten Veter solchs geleret haben wider die Nestorianer, welche wolten einen strich hiedurch machen, das Maria nicht solt Gottes mutter heissen. Und wolten nicht sagen, das sie hette Gottes son geborn.

Hie wider müssen wir sagen, wie unser glaube lautet: Ich gleube an Jhesum Christum, Gottes des Vaters einigen Son, unsern HErrn, von Maria der jungfrawen geborn, gelidden, gecreutziget und gestorben x. jmer der selbige einige Gottes Son, unser HErr. Das es warhafftig heisse: Maria ist des rechten, warhafftigen Gottes mutter, Und die Jüden haben nicht allein des menschen son, sondern warhafftigen Gottes son gecreutziget. Denn ich wil nicht eines solchen Christi, an den ich sol gleuben und jn anruffen als meinen Heiland, der ein lauter mensch ist, Sonst füre ich zum Teuffel. Denn lauter fleisch und blut künde nicht die sunde tilgen, Gott versünen und seinen zorn wegnemen, den tod und die helle uberwinden und zustören, noch das ewige leben geben (WA 45:557-559).

Conclusion
Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos (God Bearer, Mother of God) when discussing the incarnation and Jesus Christ’s Deity. Conservative Protestant theology would agree with him.  This quote may be a shocker to fundamentalist types, but not to the Lutherans, Anglicans, or the Reformed. Notice that Luther specifically mentions the heretical Nestorians. If Roman Catholic apologists are interacting with modern Nestorians that are fond of Luther, using this Luther quote could be useful!

Dr. James White once described te phrase Mother of God as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. When Rome's defenders bring up the phrase, Mother of God, they have gone beyond what Luther usually means by it. They attach excessive veneration and her intercession. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Jesus Christ developed into praise to Mary and her intercession. If you agree to use this term in dialog with a Roman Catholic apologist, use it like Luther did. Use it to say something about Jesus Christ, not Mary!   

Revised March 2026

Roman Catholics Botch Another Luther Quote: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins"

 Here's a Mariological Martin Luther quote utilized in a Facebook reel: 

In this Facebook Reel, the speaker states, 

"Even Martin Luther... the father of the Protestant Reformation, he believed in the Immaculate Conception... here's a quote from him, '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 born the Lord Jesus'... Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception. I did not know that as a Protestant growing up, when I found that out it rocked my world."

This Luther quote being used is a fine example of how poorly some of Rome's defenders are when it comes to going deep into history. Beggars All debunked this quote back in 2010.  Even if this defender of Rome didn't see this old entry, he could have easily located the context to see if the quote is being taken out of context. It is! Luther isn't affirming Mary's Immaculate Conception, at all. 

Documentation

The Facebook Reel speaker did not document the quote. Back when I explored this quote in 2010, it was popular for Rome's defenders to claim the quote was from a 1544 sermon. This year is important to them because it would mean Luther affirmed the Immaculate Conception shortly before he died (1546). However, the sermon actually dates back to the early 1530's (1532,1533, or possibly 1534). Even in the early 1530's though, Luther did not adhere to Mary's Immaculate Conception. Rome's defenders get the date wrong because the sermon the quote comes from was from a 1544 edition of Luther's House Postil (WA 52). The quote can be found in WA 52:39.

While not yet available in the English edition of Luther's Works, there are a few different English translations of the sermon available. The sermon is entitled, "First Sermon for Christmas" or "Holy Christmas Day." I've chosen to utilize this accessible online version. 

Context

In the papacy they used to tell a story: The devil once came to church to mass, and when in the confession of the Christian faith, which they called the Patrem, they sang the words: "Et homo factum est"— the Son of God was made man—and the people did not kneel down but stood, he struck one on the mouth, rebuked him and said: You ruffian, are you not ashamed that you stand here like a stock, and do not fall down for joy? If the Son of God had become our brother, like yours, we would not know what to do for joy.

I do not think that this is true; for the devil is too decided in his enmity to us and the Lord Jesus; but this is true, that he who conceived this story had the right spirit, and well understood how great an honor was conferred upon us in that the Son of God became man; not like Eve nor Adam, who was made of the earth; but He is still more nearly related to us, since He was born of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, like other men, except that the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit. In other respects He is like unto us, and a natural Son of a woman.

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]

Alternate English translation:

You see, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and God so filled the flesh, body, and soul of the Virgin Mary with the Holy Spirit in such a way, that no sin was present in her conception and carrying of the Lord Jesus (Klug (ed.), The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Baker books, 2000), 135.

Original text: Im Papstthumb hat man ein Histori gesagt, Es sey der Teuffel ein mal in ein kirch zur Messe kommen, unnd da man im Patrem die wort gesungen hab: Et homo factus est. Er ist mensch worden, und die leüt gestanden, und nicht haben nider kniet, hab er einen auff das maul geschlagen unnd in gescholten und gesagt: Du grober schelm, schemest du dich nicht, das du so stehest wie ein stock und nicht für freuden niderfellest? Wenn Gottes Son unser brüder worden wer wie der ewr, so westen wir nicht, wo wir für freuden bleiben solten. Es mag war sein oder, so es gedicht ist, so ists gedicht von eim menschen, der ein hohen geist gehabt und die grosse ehr wol verstanden hat, die uns in dem ist widerfaren, das Gottes Son ist mensch worden, Nicht wie Eva noch wie Adam, der auß erden ist gemacht worden, Sonder ist uns noch neher gefreundet², sintemal er auß dem fleisch unnd blüt der Junckfraw Maria geborn ist wie andere menschen, on das sie, die Junckfraw, allein³ gewest, und er one sünd vom heiligen Geyst empfangen ist, sonst heyst er ein rechter, natürlicher weibes son.

Adam und Eva sind nicht geboren, sondern geschaffen, Denn Adam hat Gott auß der erden gemacht und das weib auß seiner rippen. Wie vil aber ist Christus uns neher, denn die Eva ihrem Man Adam, sintemal er unser fleisch und blut ist? Solche ehr solten wir hoch achten und wol in unsere herzen bilden, das der Son Gottes ist fleisch worden, und gar kein unterschid zwischen seinem und unserm fleisch ist, denn das sein fleisch one sünd ist. Denn er ist auß dem heyligen geist empfangen, und Gott hat die seel und den leyb der Jundkfrawen Marie vol heyliges Geystes gegossen, das sie on alle sünd gewesen ist, da sie den Herrn Jesum empfangen und getragen hat. Ausser desselben ist es alles natürlich an jhm gewest wie an andern menschen, Das er geessen, truncken, jn gehungert, gedurst, gefroren hat wie andern menschen. Solche und dergleichen natürliche gebrechen hat er gehabt wie wir, wie Paulus sagt, er sey erfunden in allem ein mensch wie wir, der geessen, truncken, frölich unnd trawrig gewest ist (WA 52:39).

Conclusion
In context, is Luther stating he believed Mary was conceived without sin... or is the subject the conception of Christ and Mary's purification at that event? The later! Read this quote in context and ask yourself if it's stating Luther believed Mary was conceived without sin, or if the subject is the conception of Christ and Mary's purification at that event. Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.

I have no idea who the speaker in this Facebook Reel is. If anyone knows who he is, please let me know...  I would love to have the pleasure of un-rocking his world by showing him the quote in context.

Revised March 2026

Roman Catholics Botch Another Luther quote: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin...Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

It's laughable: Roman Catholic apologists sometimes struggle to even quote Martin Luther correctly when he's on their side! Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic article that "documents" the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, this quote is still bogus... partly in its documentation and partly in its English rendering. What it amounts to is a Roman Catholic scholar utilized another Roman Catholic scholar without checking the references, and then one of Rome's defenders did their typical cut-and-paste propaganda, making two quotes (from two different sources) one quote, and now this deceptive citation is splattered all over the Internet. 

Documentation
Please resist the temptation to skip over the tedium of documentation, for it will demonstrate how poorly some Roman Catholic apologists can handle primary sources when it comes to Luther's view of Mary.  

The reference is partly spurious. Whoever put it together combined the Weimar (not "Weimer") edition of Luther's works (German and Latin) and then added in a mention of the English edition. In the English edition there is no such quote in volume 11 on pages 319-320. Nor is there a page 510 in volume 6 of the English version.  "Pelikan" and "Concordia" had nothing to do with either of these volumes of the Weimar edition. 

The reference to the first sentence should simply be to WA 11:319-320. "V.6 p.510" refers to the second sentence ("Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact"). That quote comes from WA 6:510.

The reason both these references were put together is that whichever Roman Catholic apologist first put this quote online probably utilized Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Notice, O'Carroll uses the same English rendering:

Likewise, L. was true to Catholic tradition on the virginity. “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.” “Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319-320; WA 6,510].

But wait.... O'Carroll isn't directly quoting WA 11 or WA 6! He's quoting another Roman Catholic author, Thomas O'Meara. O'Carroll refers to O'Meara in a nearby reference as a general source for Luther's Mariology. O'Meara uses the same English rendering and documentation:

It is an article of faith that Mary is the mother of the Lord and still a virgin.

Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319, 320; WA 6, 510].

O'Meara claimed to be providing a "summary in Luther's own words." Is he summarizing Luther "in his own words" but not directly quoting him? It appears so... maybe this is why nowhere on pages 319-320 does Luther say, "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin."  The closest thing to it is on page 320:

This text reads in English, "But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin" (LW 45:206). If this is the text O'Meara is summarizing, he's done a poor job. 

O'Meara's English rendering of the second quote is closer to the Latin original but still problematic. WA 6:510 states,

O'Meara gave this sentence a little more "umph" by summarizing Luther as saying "Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Rather, the quote reads, "Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother" (WA 36:32).

The context of both sentences are fascinating. Notice below what Rome's defenders leave out in the context of the first sentence: "Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." Notice with the second sentence, the context has nothing to do with the virginity of Mary. She's used as a passing rhetorical argument concerning transubstantiation. 

Contexts

Sentence #1

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin (LW 45:205-206).

Sentence #2

Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their “forms or accidents”? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would still not be right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.

Moreover, the church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years. During this time many things have been wrongly defined, as for example, that the divine essence is neither begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body. These and like assertions are made without any reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambrai himself admits.

Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that the bread and wine should not be really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them. Besides, there is the same danger in the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. If they do not worship the accidents, but the Christ hidden under them, why should they worship the [substance of the] bread, which they do not see?

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread?

What will they reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulchre, through which he went in and out without disturbing them (LW 36:31-32).

Conclusion

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity, this quote has been botched by Rome's defenders in a number of ways:

1. As I've demonstrated, the reference popularly used online was the result of a sloppy confusing cut-and-paste (from a secondary source) melding together the German / Latin by including a mention of the English edition. 

2. This quote is two separate sentences from two different treatises, joined together for the sake of propaganda.

3. In context, Luther does not say perpetual virginity is an "article of faith that Mary is mother of the Lord," or "we believe." These phrases appear to be the renderings of Roman Catholic author Thomas O'Meara, summarizing Luther. Hence, the first sentence is not a quote from Luther and the second sentence includes a mistranslation. 

4. While the context of the first sentence addresses perpetual virginity, the context of the second sentence does not; Luther is using it to make a rhetorical argument about transubstantiation. 

5. Rome's defenders do not mention in their propaganda treatments of Luther's Mariology that from the very context one of these sentences is alleged to come from, Luther refers to such defenders as "perverse lauders of the mother of God" and "stupid idolaters" that "extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." They tend to leave such comments out to make it look like they are on the same page as Luther. They are not.

Some Protestants may be bemused that Luther accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't be. I realize Rome's defenders love to point it out. If you are in a discussion with a Roman Catholic apologist and they bring it up, point out the irony: they believe Luther was wrong about almost everything, a diabolical heretic... unless the subject is Mary... then everyone should listen to him.

During the Reformation period, Mariolatry was out of control, especially early on. it does not surprise me at all that the early Reformers maintained some of it, while later generations did not. My contention is they embraced the error of perpetual virginity because they were engulfed in a world of excessive Mariolatry, caused by those Luther referred to as, "papists." While the early Reformers did not shed all of it during their lifetimes, those that came after them eventually did.  The early Reformers were transitional. In all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity with the period which preceded it and comes after it. It does not surprise me at all they retained certain things later generations would reject. They were in a unique place in history, a place drenched in obsessive Mariolatry infecting folk piety and elite belief.

Also ask Rome's defenders why they allow themselves the magic formula of "development of doctrine" but deny it to the early Reformers and later generations of Protestants. For instance, it is obvious Luther's Mariology was more pronounced than Calvin's (Calvin's career overlapped with Luther but significantly went on after Luther's death). While Luther would cling to Mary as perpetually virgin, Calvin takes an almost agnostic view, barely mentioning it, and when he does, he downplays it (it's interesting that Rome's defenders perpetually quote the same sparse quotes from Calvin). The Protestant theologians which came after Calvin typically continue to move away from perpetual virginity (with a few exceptions).

Addendum: Must Lutherans believe the perpetual virginity of Mary is an article of faith?

But what about Luther saying Mary's perpetual virginity is an article of faith? Besides the fact that he didn't say it at least in the quote under scrutiny in this entry, isn't it part of the official Lutheran Book of Concord? Here's an interesting tidbit from the WELS web entry, Subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions in which they respond to the question, "The confessions speak of Mary as Semper Virgo (always-virgin) in the Smalcald Articles [24]. What defense do we have of this? Can I be a called worker if I don't agree with this portion of the Book of Concord?" They answer in part:

The Latin refers to Mary as pure, holy, and always-virgin. It is noteworthy that the German simply refers to the pure, holy Virgin Mary. If the confession was concerned to assert perpetual virginity for Mary, the author of the German version bungled the job totally because no reference to always-virgin appears in the German. It seems that the Latin sempervirgine was simply a stock phrase for describing the virginity of Mary. The article is not concerned to make any assertion about Mary beyond the fact that she bore a child without any participation by a human father.

And also:

Scripture makes no assertion that Jesus was born without the normal physical effects of childbirth on the body of his mother. It makes no assertion that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus. Already in the ancient church there were three theories about Jesus’ brothers and sisters who are mentioned in the gospels. One theory is that these were actually Jesus’ cousins. Another is that these were children of Joseph, whose first wife had died before he married Mary. Both of these theories were motivated at least in part by the desire to preserve Mary’s virginity even after Christ’s birth. There is no direct evidence to support them in Scripture. The third idea is that these ‘brothers’ were children of Mary and Joseph born in a natural way after Christ’s birth. This third view is the most natural understanding of the passages in which Jesus, Mary, and these brothers and sisters appear together. See, for example, Matthew 12:46 and 13:55. Luther and many of his contemporaries seem to have retained the opinion that Mary had no other children besides Jesus, but most recent Lutheran theologians lean toward the third view. In the quotation from his ‘Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper’ which is cited in FC, TD, VII, Luther refers to the belief that Mary bore Jesus ‘with a closed womb’ as a possibility believed by some. Pieper treats both matters as open questions (III, p. 307-309). Our subscription to the confessions makes no assertion about the duration of the virginity of Mary because neither Scripture nor the confessions make any such assertion.” [Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concord, pages 7-8]

Addendum 2 WA 11:319-320

Addendum 3: WA 6:510