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 qua non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession of the saints. 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. 

Zwingli: "It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the 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 usually 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:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God" [Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639]

A simple Goggle search of this quote demonstrates excessive cut-and-pastes. From a conservative Protestant perspective, there isn't anything outrageous about this quote. It's true: Mary was uniquely chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ. Why then do Roman Catholics use this quote? Before answering this question, let's take a closer look at where the quote came from.

Documentation
The reference "Evang. Luc., Opera Completa" is accurate, but I have doubts modern Roman Catholic apologists found this old text and mined out this quote, translating it into English. A Roman Catholic apologist at some point in the past came across a secondary source citing it and cut-and-pasted the quote into cyberspace. For instance, an exact early Roman Catholic English usage can be found in Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (from1982):

The Swiss Reformer expressed views somewhat similar to Luther’s; but there were certain differences due to his singular outlook. His ideas on Mary are found mostly in a Marienpredigt and in his commentary on Lk and the controversial writings. The sermon is praise of the divine motherhood and perpetual virginity: “it was given to her,” he says, “what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God." (In Evang. Luc., Op. compl., 6.1,639)

I suspect this is the probable source of the English translation. This entry / source probably relied on Walter Tappolet's Das Marienlob der Reformatoren for this quote (Tappolet is cited generally for Zwingli's Mariology). Tappolet wrote,  

Maria ist heilig, ja sie ist nach Zwinglis Worten das hei= ligste aller Geschöpfe, aber nicht aus sich selber und nicht an sich; ihre Heiligkeit stammt aus der Heiligkeit Christi: Diese Worte (Luk. ı, 42) sind nicht so zu verstehen, als ob Maria irgend welche Seligkeit Christo gegeben, oder sie selber in sich eine solche Seligkeit besessen hätte, sondern beziehen sich mehr auf das Lob Christi. Dies wird nicht dazu gesagt, als ob wir damit meinten, Maria sei nicht ganz selig gewesen: denn es ist ihr gegeben, was keiner Kreatur (sonst) zukommt, daß sie im Fleische den Sohn Gottes gebar, was aber nicht der Kreatur zugeschrieben werden kann, weil es einzig Gottes ist. Die Frau sagt also dies: Ihr Pharisäer schmäht das Werk Christi und ihr schreibt diese Macht den Dämonen zu. Ich aber verkündige gegen euch, er sei der heiligste von allen, daher selig, so daß auch seine Mutter und ihr Schoß selig sind. Die Heiligkeit der Maria stammt also aus der Heiligkeit Christi, nicht umgekehrt! (6; 639)

Mary is holy, indeed, according to Zwingli, she is the holiest of all creatures, but not by herself and not in itself; her holiness comes from the holiness of Christ: These words (Luk. ı, 42) are not to be understood as if Mary had given any kind of blessedness to Christ, or as if she herself had such blessedness within herself, but rather refer to the praise of Christ. This is not said as if we meant that Mary was not entirely blessed: for it was given to her which is not due to any creature, that she gave birth to the Son of God in the flesh, but which cannot be attributed to the creature, because it is only God's. So the woman says this: You Pharisees revile the work of Christ and you attribute this power to demons. But I declare against you that he is the holiest of all, and therefore blessed, so that his mother and her womb are also blessed. The holiness of Mary comes from the holiness of Christ, not the other way around! (6; 639)

Tappolet's put his own words purposefully in italics. He took this quote from Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, Voluminis Sexti Tomus Primus, 639:

Beatus venter qui te.) Haec ergo verba non sic intelligi debent, quasi Maria Christo aliquam beatitatem dederit, aut quod ipsa in se talem beatitudinem habuerit, sed potius pertinent ad laudem Christi. Haec non in hoc dicuntur, quasi diceremus Mariam non fuisse beatis- simam: datum est enim ei quod nulli creaturae contigit, ut in carne generaret filium dei; sed quod non debet tribui creaturae quod solius est dei. Mulier ergo sic dicit,: Vos pharisaei calumniamini factum Christi, et daemoni adscribitis hanc virtutem. Ego autem contra vos pronuncio ipsum esse sanctissimum omnium, adeoque beatum, ut etiam mater eius et uterus beata sint. Sanctitas ergo Mariae ex sanctitate nascitur Christi, non contra. Dona dei sic habent: hominibus dantur et donantur ad usum aliquem et laudem dei et salutem proximi dei vero sunt; usus datus est nobis non possessio. 

(Blessed is the womb that has thee.) These words, then, are not to be understood as if Mary gave some holiness to Christ, or that she herself had such holiness in herself, but rather belong to the praise of Christ. These things are not said in this, as if we were to say that Mary was not the most blessed: for it was given to her that which has happened to no creature, that she should bring forth the Son of God in the flesh; but that it is not to be attributed to a creature that belongs only to God. The woman therefore says thus: You Pharisees slander the deed of Christ, and ascribe this virtue to the devil. But I declare against you that he is the most holy of all, and so blessed that his mother and womb are also blessed. The sanctity of Mary, then, is born from the sanctity of Christ, not against it. God's gifts have this way: they are given and given to men for some use, and they are truly the praise of God and the salvation of God's neighbor; use is given to us, not possession.

Conclusion

In context, Zwingli is saying Mary has been blessed by being chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ. Outrageous? No. Why then are Roman Catholics utilizing this quote? In a version of The Protestant Reformers on Mary from 2000, no explanation is given, and this is typical of many of the pages using the quote.  From my cursory exploration it appears many think the quote simply substantiates their usage of Theotokos (Mother of God), even though Zwingli doesn't use the term in this quote!

If you come across a defender of Rome using this quote, ask... why? What is the quote supposed to prove? Notice what Zwingli also says in the same context: "These words, then, are not to be understood as if Mary gave some holiness to Christ, or that she herself had such holiness in herself... The sanctity of Mary, then, is born from the sanctity of Christ...".  

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

John Calvin, The Mother of God, and The Great Protestant Cover-up

Here's a John Calvin quote that repeatedly appears on polemical Roman Catholic web-pages:

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

Why would Rome's defenders be citing such a seemingly innocuous comment from Calvin? What's so controversial about Calvin saying "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43) or that the child in the womb of Mary was God incarnate? Calvin, to my knowledge, has never been charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. Nor have I ever found any charges that Calvin believed the child in Mary's womb was merely a man that became divine at some later date (Calvin explicitly argues against that). What's going on with the defenders of Rome?

This version of the Calvin quote above comes from an early pop-apologetic Roman Catholic web-page entitled, The Protestant Reformers on Mary I've never been able to determine who originally  put this web-page together (see my review here).  The page goes back at least as early as 2000. Whoever did put it together, I doubt they realized how often the content would be cut-and-pasted for years, now, decades. This old web-page was dedicated to showing "fundamentalists" "that the 'Reformers' accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." Without overtly saying it, what it appears the web-page is attempting to do is demonstrate that Calvin believed Mary was "the Mother of God," that controversial title oft-used by Roman Catholics dripping with the devotion to and the intercession of, Mary; or, as the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1954 states,

From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

Other Roman Catholic websites are more overt that their "Mother of God" meaning is intended to be extrapolated from Calvin's words. Using this quote, John Pasquini states in his books Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions and True Christianity the Catholic Way, "Even John Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God!" EWTN hosts a web-page that states, "The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God."  Raymond De Souza uses the quote as proof  that "Luther, Calvin and Zwingli preserved it intact in their systems of distorted doctrines" and that "Protestantism, unhesitatingly called the Holy Virgin 'Mother of God (theotokos).'" The Seekers Guide to Mary says, "Calvin also held that Mary was the Mother of God" and use the quote "In Calvin's own words." These are but a few examples from a seemingly endless pool of Google hits. 

As their argument typically goes, the original Reformers had a rich, almost Roman Catholic Marian piety, but, as The Protestant Reformers on Mary web-page says, "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." Why did this happen? Because the descendants of the Reformation had "iconoclastic passion"  towards Marian piety. Now, it's up to Rome's defenders to do deep historical research into the Reformation and demonstrate to modern-day Protestants how far they've strayed from likes of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. One Roman Catholic web-page utilizing the Calvin quote argues, "The longer and the further Protestant strayed from the Catholic Church, the more watered down all the Catholic Truths became including their love and devotion to Mary. But originally, the three main fathers of Protestantism loved their heavenly mother."  Now, "Mother of God" is a phrase rarely used by Protestantism, mostly ignored, sometimes derided and abhorred.

Let's take a closer look at this quote, check the documentation, put it back in its context, and then explore John Calvin's use of the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." Let's see what happens when we dare to uncover what Calvin thought about the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." We'll find there actually is a "cover-up" going on, but it's not a hiding of of Calvin saying "Mother of God" in his extant treatises.

Documentation
I suspect that the English version of this quote may have originally been taken from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 94. Note the similarities of its popular Internet use to the English rendering from O'Carroll:

O'Carroll's book documents two Calvin quotes here, "CR, 45, 348 and 35." Notice how this old EWTN page seemingly lifted the Calvin quotes from O'Carroll. The author of the EWTN article, Dr. Robert J. Schihl, mentions the information was an excerpt from his own book, A Biblical Apologetic of the Catholic Faith. I suspect that the popular online presentation of the documentation (John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35) was placed in this form by Dr. Schihl (see page 131 of his book). It appears to me that Dr. Schihl lifted O'Carroll's Calvin quotes and presented the research as his own and filled out the references. Interestingly, Dr. Schihl actually quotes O'Carroll on the same page, but never mentions him as his Calvin source. Or, it may be Dr. Schihl just cut-and-pasted someone else's use of O'Carroll. Someone, at some time, translated these Calvin quotes into English and my guess is it was O'Carroll, not Schihl or any of the online Roman Catholic polemicists.

The "CR" reference provided by O'Carroll refers to the Corpus Reformatorum, which is an old collection of Latin Reformation writings. The series contains a number of volumes of Calvin's writings. Here is a link to where Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia vol. 45 can be found, and here is the text of the quote in question being referred to on page 35:

The text being cited is Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43. This text has been translated into English, most popularly by William Pringle in the 19th century, as part of  Calvin's Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. A modern English translation is also available in print.  The translation below is from Rev. Pringle (link). The quote under scrutiny is in bold type.

Context

43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.

She calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

Conclusion
First, the tedious part of this Calvin quote, the documentation, demonstrates how deep many of Rome's defenders actually go in their studies of church history.  I suspect Michael O'Carroll, actually did pull out Calvin's writings in Latin and translate particular quotes into English. As for the bulk of usages I've seen of this Calvin quote on-line, this English rendering has simply been cut-and-pasted endlessly, along with documentation to the Latin text, as if Rome's cyber-polemicists actually utilized "Calvini Opera" or the Corpus Reformatorum! This sort of endless cut-and-pasting strongly suggests Rome's apologists never checked the actual context, nor did they know or care that a useful English version of the entire context has been widely available since the 19th century.

Second, if there really is some sort of cover-up going on, isn't the context interesting as to how Calvin comments about praising Mary? If Calvin had some sort of deep devotion to the "Mother of God" where's the proof?  Calvin says that many people are guilty of praising in a "superstitious manner" and making idols: "The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool." Then in regard to Elizabeth, Calvin admits that Mary has a higher distinction than other people, but through the testimony of Elizabeth he says it's because Mary "obtained more than she deserved." When Calvin then goes on to comment on the phrase "the mother of her Lord" and  says the child in Mary's womb was "eternal God," there is an obvious lack of  praise and devotion directed toward Mary for anything she had done or deserved. David F. Wright observed,

It is Calvin's complaint against 'the papists' that their praises of Mary have obscured her greatest honour of all, and have robbed the Son of God of his own in order to dress her up in the sinful spoils of robbery. 'The praises of Mary, where the might and sheer goodness of God are not entirely set forth, are perverse and counterfeit.' So Calvin betrays some concern at the parallelism of the salutation of Elizabeth. 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!' (Luke 1:42). The connecting particle must be taken in a casual sense, for the blessedness of Mary is due to that of Christ [David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1989) 178]. 

Earlier in his commentary, Calvin commenting on Luke 1:28 said that "Mary is blessed" "does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy." Commenting on Luke 1:42 Mary is said to "blessed" because "God bestowed the remarkable honour of bringing into the world his own Son." Probably shocking to Calvin's original audience, he says,  "To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life."  Yes, Calvin refers to Mary as "holy virgin" a few times in his commentary, but he never expounds on it in such a way as to lead his readers into any sort of devotion or praise of Mary. He goes as far as saying that while praising the day the Son was brought into the world, it should simply remind us of "the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son." Being reminded of Mary's motherhood is a far cry from devotion to Mary as the "Mother of God." Commenting on Luke 1:48, Calvin says:

Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son.”' None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.

Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honourable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements. Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him.

Third, isn't it peculiar that Calvin never actually uses the phrase, "Mother of God" in the quote we've been examining?  Certainly it can be deduced from the context that "Mary is mother of the Lord" and the "mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God." Why didn't Calvin just use the phrase "Mother of God"? Here's where it gets interesting: as I've gone through Calvin's writings, the phrase "Mother of God" or "Theotokos" is oddly missing. Could it be that the phrase is missing because future generations of Protestants expunged it from Calvin's writings as part of the nefarious Reformation Marian piety cover-up?

According to Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara then refers to a letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

And this is exactly why Calvin avoided it and why many within Protestantism do today. James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise to Mary. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety, abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions." Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26.) This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Yes, there's a cover-up going on, but it's not on the Protestant side. It's with Rome's defenders attempting to reinterpret John Calvin as a supporter of their particular brand of Mariology.  It's only by equivocating and playing fast and loose with terms does John Calvin become a supporter of Rome's Mary, the blessed and holy "Mother of God." Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" and Calvin realized this. There was a blatant attempt by Calvin and the Genevan government to suppress Romanism. That Calvin conscientiously avoided using "Theotokos" is just one instance of what was going on at the time. For example, there was a Genevan law in place which forbade parents to name their children after popular saints. One man spent a few days in jail for naming his child after a saint that had a shrine in the area!

Rome's defenders could counter all this and simply say John Calvin believed in the title "Mother of God" because he believed in the concept that Mary was the mother of Jesus who is God. But what would be the point?  The same argument could be made of me and countless others. No, we reject the deep devotional and intercessory role that their use of the phrase "Mother of God" implies within a Roman Catholic worldview.


Addendum #1, Trent Horn
I first wrote about Calvin's use of the phrase "Mother of God" back in 2013. While revisiting this subject I came across Rome's defender Trent Horn commenting on Calvin's rejection of using the term "Mother of God." Mr. Horn says,

Some Protestants object to Mary’s divine maternity not on biblical, logical, or historical grounds, but on practical ones. According to them, even if Mary is the Mother of God, Christians should not say she is because that can mislead less educated people. For example, Calvin said, “To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.”26 Matt Slick says, “The term, ‘mother of God,’ runs the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.” Gustafson likewise claims it is “creepy” to call Mary the Mother of God because this conjures up images of Mary being God’s wife.

This objection is as weak as saying that we should not refer to Jesus as God’s Son because that runs the risk of suggesting that God has a wife or that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary. This is not a hypothetical concern as early Mormons like Brigham Young understood Jesus’ identity as “Son of God” to mean Jesus was “begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”. Many Muslims reject the Incarnation precisely because they think it entails that God physically begot Jesus through Mary. This shows that a doctrine should not be rejected just because it can be misunderstood. If that were the case, our faith would have few or possibly no doctrines at all!

26. John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters , vol. 5, ed. Jules Bonnett (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 362. Michael O’Carroll, however, documents Calvin saying, “The mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” O’Carroll, Theotokos , 94

I've included Horn's footnote because he included the same Calvin quote this entry is focused on. Did he include it to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency in Calvin's thought? Regardless, Horn makes a logical point, that simply because a phrase can be misunderstood or abused does not mean the term should be avoided. I've similarly tried to remind people that the word "Catholic" does not necessarily mean, "Roman Catholic." Some of the people I've used the word on are obviously confused, until I explain it to them. Think also of how our current society pours an entirely different meaning into the word "gay." What was once intended to mean "lighthearted and carefree" now means "homosexual." When Calvin avoided the term "Theotokos," it was consciously done as part of the ongoing societal Reformation efforts which sought to expel as much Romanism as possible from Geneva. It makes perfect sense he would pass along this advice to other Reformation efforts throughout Europe.

Should Protestant today avoid the term?  I would never argue as Horn's examples of Slick and Gustafson do. Those are wacky examples, for sure. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase if it's understood in a Christological sense rather than a Marian sense. I see this debate more like debating with a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness as to who Jesus is. Rome's apologists presents a different "Mother of God" than than which is found in sacred Scripture. When one reads a Mormon writing mentioning Jesus, a careful reader pours in the meaning of who Jesus is according to the Mormons. The same goes for Roman Catholic writings about the Mother of God. I'm all for reclaiming misused words for proper service in the "Catholic" church!

Addendum #2
Thomas O'Meara includes an alternate English translation of Calvin's comments about Mary in his letter from September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London:

I have no doubt that there has been some ignorance in that they have reproved this fashion of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and because of their ignorance it is likely that they have assumed a temerity and brashness which is too great. . . . However, to continue in fraternal friendship with you I am not able to disguise the fact that I find it wrong to have this title ordinarily attributed in sermons about the Virgin, and for my own part I would not think that such language was good or proper or convenient. . . . You know that scripture accustoms us to a rather different manner of speaking, but there is something worse here—for it could give scandal. To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition. And he who is content with that shows quite clearly that he is not aware of what is edifying in the Church [Calvin, Lettres anglaises (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1959), pp. 180-181].

O'Carroll on Calvin's Mariology

A few weeks ago I Came across Michael O'Carroll's Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Virgin Mary. His entry on Calvin was interesting, but unreadable unless one can read upside down. I took the time to flip the pages around.

Overall, I think this Roman Catholic treatment of Calvin's Mariology is quite good. Rome's apologists would do well to consider how radically different Calvin's view of Mary was to the Roman church of his day and the Roman church of our day. O'Carroll does well in describing the continuity / discontinuity of Calvin with the church of his day as well as with later periods of church history.